Sahrawi activist returned to Laayoune last night

After voluntarily checking herself into the hospital on Thursday morning, Haidar was allowed to return home to Laayoune in the Western Sahara Thursday evening.

The BBC reported Today that “It now appears that frantic multi-country talks were under way to seek a resolution … [but ] details of how a deal was finally reached were not known … The Spanish foreign ministry said only that it was the result of a co-ordinated effort between Spain, France and the US to persuade Morocco that it would be ‘preferable’ to allow Mrs Haidar back to Western Sahara. A spokesperson told the BBC no conditions were attached and Spain had issued ‘salvoconducto‘ (safe-conduct) documents to make travel possible …The independence activist launched her very public protest after the Moroccan authorities confiscated her passport and denied her entry to Laayoune, in the disputed territory of Western Sahara. She had refused to declare her nationality as Moroccan on an official form – as usual – but this time she was expelled from the territory”.

The Financial Times reported that Morocco relented, after international diplomacy went into high gear. Unfortunately, as so often happens when diplomacy goes into high gear, it was at the expense of a political concession: “Earlier this week, Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, called for accelerated negotiations to help save Ms Haidar’s life. Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, helped broker a deal with Morocco’s King Mohammed VI to allow Ms Haidar’s return. As part of the agreement, both France and Spain – Morocco’s most important European allies – have issued conciliatory official statements recognising the de facto application of Moroccan law in the Western Sahara until the conflict is resolved. Human rights activists believe that western governments are cynically ignoring the legitimate demands of Sahrawis to protect their commercial and strategic interests (which include countering the influence of both China and al-Qaeda in Africa) through their relations with Morocco”.

The FT said that “Carne Ross, a former British diplomat who advises on international affairs and admires Ms Haidar, has blamed Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, for inadvertently encouraging the Moroccan authorities to crack down on Sahrawi activists when she praised the country’s human rights record and its plans for the Western Sahara in an interview before her recent visit to Morocco … Mr Ross, who advises Polisario, said in an e-mailed message to the media on Thursday shortly before Ms Haidar returned home to El Ayoun that her plight was ‘the real price of the EU’s cosying-up to Morocco, including negotiating an enhanced partnership with the EU, and paying Morocco for EU boats illegally to fish the Western Saharan waters’.”

As the FT explained: “Morocco annexed the Western Sahara as Spain abandoned it in 1975, and the territory is sometimes called Africa’s last remaining colony. The Polisario Front, based in neighbouring Algeria, waged a guerrilla war for independence until the United Nations brokered a ceasefire deal that provided for a referendum. But the vote has yet to be held and Morocco says that the most it will grant is autonomy … According to Mr Ross, seven other Sahrawi activists face military trials for treason and could be sentenced to death if found guilty”. This FT story can be read in full here.

In an interesting article signed by AHMED T.B., showing artful reporting combining praise and constructive criticism (plus, of course the facts) in an difficult and tendentious atmosphere, posted on the MoroccoBoard website, the author writes: “Morocco’s actions against Haider gave credence to her claims of abuse against the Sahrawi; claims that were partially discredited on account of the fact that she lived in Morocco and was free of her movement and expression. The United States, France, and the Arab governments (minus Algeria,) thus far, bask in a stolid insularity. Could Morocco have handled Haidar’s issue internally? Absolutely yes! She is, after all, Moroccan. The removal of a Moroccan’s citizenship is by Royal decree (there are exceptions and Haidar’s case is not one.) That authority is not delegated to the King’s prosecutor. The Moroccan legal system has established a set procedure to be adhered to. A Moroccan cannot just surrender her passport, and renounce her citizenship, nor should the government deprive a Moroccan of her citizenship without due process. If Aminatou Haidar decided to submit a request to the King to forfeit her Moroccan citizenship, and such request was approved, only then could she be handed over to MINURSO officials for transport to the refugee camps in Tindouf. The Aminatou Haider incident exposes the flaws of Morocco’s policies and the inefficiency of its security posture vis-à-vis its Southern Provinces. Perhaps emboldened by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s expressed commitment to support Morocco’s agenda (after all, Christopher Ross is a career U.S. Foreign Service Officer,) Mohammed VI, in his speech commemorating the 34th anniversary of the “Green March,” delivered a stern message to the Sahrawis signaling that the democratic process afterglow had waned. The King presented the Sahrawi population with an ultimatum a la George W. Bush – ‘you are either patriots or traitors’. The execution of his directives was immediate. Security forces rounded up dozens of activists accusing them of providing material and/or ideological support to the Polisario Front; they reinforced their presence in southern cities and the routes connecting them. If Haider is indeed a subversive member of the Polisario, as Morocco’s Foreign Minister Taeib Fassi-Fihri claimed today in Brussels, the Moroccan authorities should have arrested her, presented their evidence, and tried her. Much like Ahmed Alansari, Brahim Dahane, Yahdih Ettarouzi, Saleh Labihi, Dakja Lashgar, Rachid Sghir and Ali Salem Tamek, all arrested on October 8th in Casablanca, Haider was known to Morocco’s intelligence services since 1987 when she was ‘disappeared’ for four years for joining a local underground pro-polisario support group. After the passing of Hassan II and seizing on the permissiveness of the transitional spirit that characterized Mohammed VI’s political outlook then, Haider overtly campaigned for the independence of ‘Western Sahara’. When riots broke out in El Aayoun in 2005, she was, once again, arrested and detained for seven months. Morocco’s counterintelligence office had an opportunity to launch an offensive intelligence operation to deny Algeria the initiative. Haider and other Sahrawi dissenters could have been recruited as sources considering their tremendous placement and access allowing them to answer some of Morocco’s priority intelligence requirements. Granted that they lacked the motivation to support what they regard as a colonizer, but the Moroccan government should have embraced them, involved them in the political process and provided them with a controlled venue to express their frustrations. From an intelligence perspective, Aminatou Haider is an utter failure. It is clear that Morocco’s strategy, as it stands, is counterintuitive. The King’s rigid approach will greatly compromise Morocco’s long-run political prospect and tax its security forces by driving the opposition underground forcing it to devise a stealth modus operandi and making it suitable for exploitation by foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations. A calibrated strategy with depth and forethought would seek to foster an environment of debate and a culture of transparency that does not revolve around passionate rallies of mindless patriotism. Instead of threats, the government should bring arguments to the fore. Instead of echoing gauzy statements to cover up its mistakes, it should take responsibility”. This posting can be read in full
here. [Its website says that “Morocco Board News Service is the Moroccan American Community News source for American-North African Affairs. Its content is distributed to Moroccan Americans, to general market media and to a broad range of the general Public. The topics are not usually covered by the English language media. MoroccoBoard reaches a new audience with a new focus. It is a podium for different voices and opinions; it sheds the light on America’s relation with Morocco and North Africa“.]

Israeli official to the NYTimes: "Not everything is written down" in the Road Map

Revelations are emerging from the ping-pong of news developments as revelations in the Israeli media spur publication of reports by American correspondents based in Israel which are in turn picked up by the Israeli media.

At the end of May, according to the Israeli media, there were reportedly talks in London between Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, attorney Yitzhak Molcho [who apparently is Netanyahu’s man in charge of Palestinian “matters”],  National Security Advisor Uzi Arad and the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Ministry of Defense Mike Herzog — and the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell.

One Israeli publication (I think it was Haaretz, but — sorry — I lost the reference!!) reported last week that the U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell “emphasized that the U.S. does not accept the concept of ‘natural growth’ for the settlements. ‘We did not hear from the Bush administration about any of these so-called understandings with Israel on the settlements – all of which were supposedly oral understandings between different people every time’, said one senior American official. ‘But we’ve never heard a thing about them – they certainly weren’t formal agreements between our governments. The Israelis want us to commit to oral understandings we have never heard about, but at the same time they are not willing to commit to written agreements their government has signed, like the road map and commitment to the two-state solution’. The disagreement over the understandings concerning the settlements produced an embarrassing encounter in London last week during a meeting between Mitchell, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor and a number of Netanyahu’s advisers. At the meeting, the Israelis claimed there was a letter between former president George W. Bush and former prime minister Ariel Sharon stating that the settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands, so construction is permitted there. Mitchell showed the Israelis that one of the letter’s sections discusses the principle of two states for two peoples. ‘That is also written in the letter – do you agree to that?’ he asked”.

Pretty good.

Then, the NY Times correspondent in Jerusalem, Ethan Bronner, reported that “Senior Israeli officials expressed irritation on Wednesday that President Obama had declined to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement ‘freeze’ … The Israeli officials said that repeated and ongoing discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 gave unambiguous permission to build within the boundaries of certain settlement blocs as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built”. The NYTimes reported that an Israeli official who asked for anonymity said that “When Israel signed onto the so-called roadmap for a two-state solution in 2003, which says its government ‘freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)’ … it was after a detailed discussion with Bush officials that laid out those explicit limits. ‘Not everything is written down’, said one of the officials. He and others said that Israel agreed both to the roadmap and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth could continue”.

The NYTimes checked this with American officials and former officials, and then reported that “a senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization ‘an overstatement’. ‘There was never an agreement to accept natural growth’, the official said Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. ‘There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren’t able to reach agreement on that’. ..

Continue reading Israeli official to the NYTimes: "Not everything is written down" in the Road Map

Are the Americans serious this time?

The international press is writing that it seems different this time, that this new American administration may be serious this time — about stopping Israeli settlement-building, expansion, and whatnot. But, that’s what sells newspapers.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and company were received at the White House in Washington on Thursday 28 May. Obama is the leader, here, talking with dominant body language.

The protocol is interesting: on the couch beside Obama are (No. 1) Special MidEast envoy George Mitchell, (2) U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (the one in the more colorful clothing), and (2) VP Joe Biden.

On the couch beside Abbas are PLO Executive Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo (who is also now apparently in charge of media for the PA), long-time negotiator Saeb Erekat, and someone I can’t immediately identify who is writing on a notepad (very similar to the one the interpreter is using in the photo below).

A portrait of the U.S. “founding father”, George Washington, is over the no-frills mantle decorated with Republican greens (no floral arrangements, but why not herbs that can be replanted later in Michelle’s garden?). And Abraham Lincoln is prominently displayed in the upper left side of the photo.  The Palestinians would probably have been happy if there were also a portrait of Martin “I-have-a-dream” Luther King, but the Israelis might have freaked out…

The expanded meeting between Obama and Abbas at the White House on 28 May 2009

Continue reading Are the Americans serious this time?

The logic of the Olso Accords still continues

During the first Palestinian Intifada, a spontaneous uprising in the West Bank and Gaza that started at the end of 1987 and caught the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership in exile by surprise, any display of the Palestinian flag — or even just showing its colors (green-red-white-black) — was severely repressed by Israeli troops. It was a shooting offense.

At peace talks launched at an international conference in Madrid in 1991 after the Cold War ended — and just a few months after the U.S.-led Desert Storm coalition forced Saddam Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait, amid much Arab commentary about U.S. double standards in the Middle East — the Palestinian delegation had to participate as members of the Jordanian delegation. The Palestinian participants were supposed to be “independent” and not members of the PLO — though the delegation members made it clear during the talks that they deferred to the PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who was in based Tunis at the time.
Continue reading The logic of the Olso Accords still continues

US Embassy had to be prodded to object to Senate resolution urging division of Iraq

Only after Iraqi leaders made strenuous objections did the U.S. Embassy in Iraq take issue with an amazing and incomprehensible U.S. Senate resolution that seems to propose some sort of ethnic partitioning of Iraq.

Two of the most sinister suspicions aroused by the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam in 2003 were (1) that it’s only about control over Iraq’s oil and (2) that this is also intended to carve up Iraq into three parts (that were only artificially joined together by British administration after World War I) — the Kurdish north, the Shi’a south, and the rest.

(The third most sinister suspicion was that another main aim was to get rid of Saddam, who — having for a time been a main beneficiary — knew too many secrets about Western companies and their government’s shenanigans in the region.)

The U.S. post-invasion policy of “affirmative action” favoring the Shi’a and Kurdish regions has probably inadvertently been in large part responsible for the ethnic bloodletting that it was apparently intended to avoid.

The current revival of partionist policies in the Middle East (in Iraq and in Palestine) is a most unhappy and unwise development. The results achieved from such policies in the aftermath of the Second World War do not, by and large, recommend these awful human experiments. The U.S. policy in the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union, was in favor of “multi-ethnic democracies” and against ethnic cleansing. What has happened since that should recommend such sinister policies? Was it just all too much? Does being exhausted and over-burdened as a sole superpower mean that more people should suffer more tragedy?

Now, Walls are becoming fashionable in many regions…
Continue reading US Embassy had to be prodded to object to Senate resolution urging division of Iraq