Official reactions to the HRW report
Having now skimmed the new HRW report, it seems to me to be a very thorough piece of work. It presents a nuanced picture of repression on all sides in Western Sahara, and gives the most complete picture I have seen so far of the present human rights situation. (It does not deal with past violations.)
For example, police repression in Moroccan-held Western Sahara is portrayed in all its unpleasantness, with several political trials examined in detail. But the report also notes significant improvements since the 1990s: "Despite the persistent enforcement of laws repressing advocacy of Sahrawi
independence, Morocco has gradually and unevenly opened the door to wider debate on this issue." And "[i]n contrast to twenty years ago, Sahrawi activists conduct [pro-independence] activities and return home most nights without being disturbed. However, sooner or later most of them encounter various forms of harassment that can include travel restrictions, arbitrary arrest, beatings, or trial and imprisonment on trumped-up charges. In recent years, courts have generally imposed on Sahrawi activists sentences of three years or less, sentences generally much shorter than those imposed during the earlier period." This nuanced but critical view, of course, shatters both the stalinesque propaganda of official Morocco, according to which All Is Well In The Southern Provinces, but also pokes a hole in POLISARIO's claims that nothing has changed -- or can change -- for the better under Moroccan rule.
HRW also notes that power remains centralized to a small core of decision-makers in POLISARIO's Tindouf camps, with the refugee community dependent on their political leadership for jobs and provision, rather than the other way around; a situation which naturally encourages corruption and abuse. However, the report also points out that the political climate has been much liberalized since the ceasefire in 1991, and that "[t]oday, political detentions are rare or nonexistent in the refugee camps." It provides the first serious investigation of the slavery allegations, noting that "vestiges of slavery" and traditional racist social stratification remains in the camps, primarily in such a way as to affect marriage customs; but also, that POLISARIO has tried to fight these phenomena, and that they are present throughout Sahrawi/Moorish society, including on the Moroccan side. It clarifies that refugees aren't "forcibly held" or "sequestered", as Morocco claims, and that they are quite able to leave the camps -- but also that people fear POLISARIO's reaction if they were to announce a willingness to resettle in Moroccan-held territory. These descriptions run totally counter to POLISARIO's fantastical claims of a blossoming little refugee democracy, but also undermine Rabat's equally absurd depiction of the Tindouf camps as a sort of desert GULAG archipelago for kidnapped Moroccans.
Finally, HRW points out the anomaly that there is no party formally responsible to the international community for human rights protection in Tindouf: Algeria has abdicated rule over the area to the Sahrawi Republic, which in turn is not internationally recognized, and the UN mission, MINURSO, has no human rights-monitoring component. The report argues that Algeria's responsibility should be defined and recognized (something Algeria wants to hear nothing of, preferring its ambiguous role on the sidelines), and also demands that MINURSO get the same right and duty as other UN missions to monitor human rights in all of its areas of responsibility, i.e. all of Western Sahara and the POLISARIO-administered territories in Algeria (something which Morocco is rigidly opposed to, and which its ally France blocks in the Security Council).
All in all, this report is the best I've read so far, by far, on Western Sahara's human rights issues. So how was it received by its intended recipients, the ruling circles in Rabat, Rabouni and Algiers? Quite predictably, by a barrage of shrill and one-sided propaganda:
In Morocco, some officials denounce the report, which is harshest on Morocco (for the simple reason that Morocco has on the whole been much more abusive to Sahrawis). For example, Istiqlali parliamentarian Hamid Shibat explained to al-Jazira that the report is a product of, you guessed it, Algerian intelligence.* And the palace mouthpiece Le Matin is shocked to its very core after reading this "perfidious" document: "One falls backwards, one must be dreaming, one thinks that one is hearing an Algerian delegate in front of an assembly". However, the paper then catches its breath again, to summarize the report in another article in quite different tones. Now it suddenly states that "Polisario and Algeria are responsible for human rights violations in the Tindouf camps."
This is also the line taken by the official news agency, MAP, which spews out a steady stream of articles on the report, like one headlined "HRW urges Algeria to assume responsibility for Polisario barbaric acts in Tindouf" or its sister piece, which claims that "HRW's assessment is almost a scathing denial of the vain allegations that the polisario and its mentor Algeria throw out whenever a handful of separatists strive to disrupt public order and whenever Moroccan authorities exercise their right to restore order and reprimand violent rioting demonstrators and thieves." Almost!
Algerian and Sahrawi media is no better. The Sahrawi news agency, SPS, somehow twists HRW criticisms of POLISARIO rule in Tindouf into "HRW welcomes the role of the Polisario Front for the protection of human rights" and the writers' union UPES obediently follows suit: "Human Rights Watch accused Morocco on Friday of beating and torturing independence campaigners in Western Sahara and said U.N. peacekeepers should start monitoring human rights in the territory." And APS, the Algerian state news agency, sums up the report as "Morocco is in the eye of the storm because of its repression in Western Sahara." Meanwhile, the Algerian state newspaper El Moudjahid sums up the situation in Tindouf as simply one of "freedom of movement, no political prisoners, and where criticism against the management of Front Polisario is permitted," and the other state newspaper, ech-Chaab, headlines with "Morocco violates rights of free expression in Western Sahara," and that's about it.
The expression "dialogue of the deaf" doesn't capture the scope of the problem here. It's more like a drooling, spitting, eye-rolling rant of the mentally retarded. All the peoples involved deserve so much better than these pitiful governments.
UN report of 2006 was ghost-written by Algeria's "invisible hand"?
7 comments:
At least the UPES, both in arabic and english posted the entire report to the readers. I think that also should me comended
Anonymous - fair point. They deserve credit for that.
Alle - thanks for your concise summary, which is a great digested read and analysis of the predictable responses. The report inevitably provides a rich smorgasboard of positive and negative news from both sides, and each side can select whatever counts for praise of themselves and emphasise criticism of the other. It's almost (that word again) fun to watch.
I did notice that the report cites 125,000 as the number of refugees, based on the number of food rations currently supplied by the World Food Programme, if I recall correctly (and do correct me if I don't as I'm in an internet cafe and this is from the memory of my initial skim of the report).
This is up from the figure of 90,000 "most vulnerable" used by the WFP since late 2005 (and still maintained by the WFP as far as I can recall), but down from the figure of 155,000 used by the WFP in 2000. Of course it is short of the Algerian estimate of 165,000.
All these figures seem open to question, and I wonder if the report deserves some criticism for settling on the figure of 125,000 and citing this as if it's a well-established estimate of the population.
I'm left wondering what happened to the 30,000 extra people the WFP was apparently feeding in 2000 (155,000 rather than 125,000). Or were they feeding people who weren't there?
Can anyone shed any light on these figures without resorting to politically-driven inflation or under-estimation?
As a saharawi refugee I can tell you that the rations distributed to the refugees by the WFP are far less then the number of people in the camps. I do not know an exact figure but it is somehow near 155 or 160 thousand or maybe more because many people settle in the liberated areas popr long periods and come back when there is no rain. I think the HRW preport IS NOT ACCURATE WHEN IT COMES TO THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT COS' ANYONE CAN LEAVE THE CAMPS WHEN THEY WISH TO AND ESTABLISH IN TIFARITY, MAYRITANIA, SPAIN OR EVEN AAIUN. But I think they wanted to look balanced!!!
Thanks very much for the broad overview of media attention of the report.
I can imagine one gets tired of the propaganda wars while reading all that stuff for indeed it may contain a lot of drooling rant and words like that.
As for instance the royal statement by Sultan Mohammed VI: "The enemies of our territorial integrity are formidable abusers of human rights, as evidenced by their heinous practices in camps where people are detained against their will."
The HRW report in all it's civilized wordings did away with these accusations. The world knows now the words of Mohammed VI are not to be trusted when he speaks about Western Sahara.
I am so happy to get some hero gold and the hero online gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the hero online money is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should buy hero gold with the spare money and I gain some hero money from other players.
Post a Comment