New York (United Nations), 17 September 2024 (SPS) – Dr Sidi Mohamed Omar, Member of the National Secretariat, Representative of the Frente POLISARIO at the United Nations and Coordinator with MINURSO, addressed a letter today to Ambassador Samuel Žbogar, Representative of Slovenia to the UN Security Council and President of the Security Council for the month of September.
The letter contained a strong refutation of the series of misleading claims made by the UN representative of Morocco, the occupying state, in his recent letter to the Security Council. The Sahrawi diplomat demonstrated with documented evidence the hollowness of those claims, stressing that the representative of the occupying state is deluding himself if he thinks that he can mislead Member States by repeating the same lies and making the same claims, which have repeatedly proved to be totally false and deceptive.
Full text of the letter as received by SPS:
New York, 17 September 2024
H.E. Mr Samuel Žbogar
Ambassador and Representative of Slovenia to the UN Security Council
President of the Security Council
Your Excellency,
I would like first to congratulate you on assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the month of September and to wish you every success in your mission.
The Security Council has recently received a letter from the Moroccan permanent representative to the United Nations in which, as usual, he goes out of his way to distort the facts and make baseless claims about the question of Western Sahara.
Motivated by his obsession to repeat the same lies in the hope that people would eventually come to believe them, the representative of Morocco, the occupying state, rehashes the same unfounded claims that we have already refuted with documented evidence in previous letters including (S/2023/219), (S/2023/456), and (S/2024/614), among others. However, in the interest of truth and to set the record straight, we will take a closer look at these claims to demonstrate once again that they are totally false and deceptive.
1- Western Sahara is a UN designated Non-Self-Governing Territory awaiting decolonisation since 1963 and illegally occupied by Morocco since 1975
In his letter, the representative of Morocco, the occupying state, claims that the question of Western Sahara is not a “decolonisation issue” and that, according to him, the Territory is not designated as a ““colonised territory” either by history, international law, the reports of the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, let alone the resolutions of the Security Council”.
It is telling that the representative of the occupying state omits, from his list, the General Assembly, which is the main organ of the United Nations that is competent to designate a colonised territory as a Non-Self-Governing Territory and to decide whether that territory has or has not been decolonised within the meaning of Chapter XI of the UN Charter. This glaring omission says a great deal about his disingenuous motives.
It is common knowledge that Chapter XI of the UN Charter unequivocally applies to territories that are “known to be of the colonial type” (A/RES/1541(XV)). It was on this basis that, in 1960, Spain agreed—under the pressure of Member States known for their anti-colonial positions—to transmit information on the then Spanish Sahara to the Secretary-General in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the UN Charter.
It was also on this basis that, in its report (A/5446/Rev.1) presented to the General Assembly in December 1963, the Special Committee on Decolonisation (C-24) included the Territory on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples applied. Ever since, Western Sahara has been addressed by the General Assembly and its relevant bodies as a Non-Self-Governing Territory and an issue of decolonisation within the meaning of Chapter XI of the UN Charter.
This fact is confirmed, inter alia, by the report submitted by the Secretary-General to the seventy-ninth session of the General Assembly in which he clearly states that: “The Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee) of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples address Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory and an issue of decolonisation” ((A/79/229), para. 2).
The General Assembly has also deeply deplored the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, which was carried out in violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and basic rules of international law. In its resolution 34/37 of 21 November 1979, the General Assembly “deeply deplores the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco” and “urges Morocco to join in the peace process and to terminate its occupation of the Territory of Western Sahara” (A/RES/34/37, operative paras. 5 and 6 respectively). The General Assembly reiterated both the spirit and the letter of its resolution 34/37 in its resolution 35/19 of 11 November 1980.
Concerning the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it suffices to cite the conclusion of its Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, dated 16 October 1975, in which the Court ruled that: “The Court’s conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonisation of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory” (ST/LEG/SER.F/1, p. 100).
The ICJ not only established that there had never been any tie of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and Morocco, but it also reaffirmed General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonisation of the Territory.
As for the Security Council, it is noteworthy that, in its first resolution on Western Sahara (S/RES/377(1975)), adopted on 22 October 1975, the Security Council reaffirmed the terms of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and all other relevant General Assembly resolutions on Western Sahara. Moreover, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) formed the rationale for Security Council resolution 658 (1990) and resolution 690 (1991) whereby the Council unanimously approved the UN-OAU Settlement Plan and the establishment of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).
In view of the above, as long as the General Assembly has not validated the exercise by the Sahrawi people of their inalienable right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the UN Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, Western Sahara remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples applies. It is worth noting that the status of Western Sahara as both a Non-Self-Governing Territory and an occupied Territory is compatible with international law and practice.
2 - “Madrid Agreement” is null and void and without any legal effect on the international status of Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory
In his letter, the representative of the occupying state claims that “the decolonisation” of Western Sahara was “definitively settled” thanks to the so-called “green march”, and that its acquisition “was also sealed within the United Nations, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3458 B (XXX) of 10 December 1975, in which the Assembly took note of the Madrid Accord signed on 14 November 1975”.
Regarding the so-called “green march”, it is noteworthy that the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 380 (1975) on 6 November 1975 in which the Council “deplores the holding of the march” and “calls upon Morocco immediately to withdraw from the Territory of Western Sahara all the participants in the march” (S/RES/380(1975), operative paras. 1 and 2 respectively).
Why did the Security Council unanimously deplore the so-called “green march” and call upon Morocco immediately to withdraw its nationals from Western Sahara, and would the Council have taken such a unanimous decision if it had recognised Morocco’s claims over the Territory? The answer is clear: the Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, deplored the Moroccan march and called for its immediate withdrawal because it constituted an act of aggression that violated the boundary of Western Sahara and its territorial integrity.
Curiously, the representative of the occupying state seemed to have learnt at least one thing from our previous letter (S/2024/520) in which we exposed his wilful misrepresentation of General Assembly resolution 3458 B (XXX), when he claimed falsely that the General Assembly had “endorsed” (“entériné” in his original statement in French) the “Madrid Agreement”.
As we have demonstrated in our letter (S/2024/520), in its resolution 3458 B (XXX), the General Assembly merely “took note of” the agreement, a fact that the representative of the occupying state now seems to recognise in his latest letter. However, as we will show, there remains yet a great deal for him to learn to stop circulating manifestly unfounded claims that are an insult to the intelligence of Member States.
It is a well-established fact that the General Assembly has never “endorsed” or “approved” the “Madrid Agreement”. It has never considered the agreement to have affected the international status of Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory in line with General Assembly resolution 742 (VIII) of 27 November 1953 and relevant resolutions. As indicated above, the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies continue to address the question of Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory and an issue of decolonisation within the meaning of Chapter XI of the UN Charter (A/79/229), para. 2).
Moreover, the Legal Opinion issued by the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal Counsel, on 29 January 2002, at the request of the Security Council is abundantly clear on this issue. In his Legal Opinion, the Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, established that: “The Madrid Agreement did not transfer sovereignty over the territory, nor did it confer upon any of the signatories the status of an administering Power—a status which Spain alone could not have unilaterally transferred. The transfer of administrative authority over the Territory to Morocco and Mauritania in 1975 did not affect the international status of Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory” (S/2002/161, para. 6).
If the decolonisation of Western Sahara had been “definitively settled” thanks to the so-called “green march”, and “also sealed within the United Nations, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3458 B (XXX)”, as claimed by the representative of the occupying state, why did the General Assembly deplore deeply “the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco” in its resolutions 34/37 of 1979 and 35/19 of 1980 referred to above?
If the decolonisation of Western Sahara had been “definitively settled”, why did King Hassan II of Morocco accept the referendum for self-determination of the people of Western Sahara and why did he solemnly undertake to consider his country bound by the results of that referendum (A/38/PV.8, para. 26)? In the same vein, why did the occupying state agree in August 1988 on the UN-OAU settlement proposals “containing proposals for a just and definitive solution of the question of Western Sahara in conformity with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)” (S/21360, para. 1)?
If the decolonisation of the Territory had been “definitively settled”, why did the Security Council approve, in its resolution 658 (1990), “the report of the Secretary-General, transmitted to the Council in accordance with resolution 621 (1988) with a view to settling the question of Western Sahara”? Moreover, why did the Security Council establish, by unanimous vote of its members and under its authority, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to organise a referendum for self-determination of the people of Western Sahara (S/RES/690 (1991))?
After all, if the decolonisation of the Territory had been “definitively settled” in 1975, why do the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies as well as the Security Council remain seized of the question of Western Sahara “as an issue of decolonisation” in the case of the General Assembly and “as a matter of peace and security” in the case of the Security Council ((A/79/229), para. 2)?
The representative of Morocco, the occupying state, has never been able to answer any of these straightforward questions simply because they lay bare the absurdity of the entire “argument” on the basis of which the occupying state has been futilely trying to “justify” its illegal occupation of Western Sahara, which has been going on since 1975 in violation of the UN Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union.
3 - Self-determination is an inalienable right to be exercised freely and genuinely by the peoples concerned, not by the occupying and colonial powers
The representative of the occupying state, in his letter, refers to “the principle of self-determination”. However, his disingenuous rhetoric on the subject reveals that he has a “chronic allergy” to self-determination to the extent that he hardly refers to it and, if he does, he always distorts the substance and the foundational purpose of this fundamental right.
For instance, he selectively and reductively refers to General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), but he omits the operative paragraph 4 of the resolution, which states that “all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected”.
He also refers to General Assembly resolutions 1541 (XV) of 1960 and 2625 (XXV) of 1970 with regard to the implementation of the right to self-determination. However, he makes no reference to the fundamental basis underlying the right of peoples to self-determination and the modes of its application, which “requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned” (ICJ Reports 1975, p. 12, 32).
The representative of the occupying state misleadingly refers to the principle of “territorial integrity”. However, this principle has no relevance whatsoever in this case because Western Sahara has never been part of Morocco as confirmed by the ICJ in its above-mentioned Advisory Opinion of 1975. Moreover, Western Sahara remains a UN designated Non-Self-Governing Territory that has a “status separate and distinct” from Morocco, the occupying state, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) and relevant resolutions.
Nowhere in the resolutions cited by the representative of the occupying state is it stated by the General Assembly that military invasion, occupation and forcible acquisition of territories against the wishes of their peoples are ways of exercising self-determination, because this is exactly how Morocco carried out its illegal occupation of Western Sahara in October 1975, which was deeply deplored by the General Assembly in its above-mentioned resolutions.
The representative of the occupying state refers to the option of “any other political status freely determined” as a mode of implementing the right to self-determination, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV). Yet he glosses over the fact that any “other political status”, as provided for in resolution 2625 (XXV), must be “freely determined” by the peoples concerned themselves, not by the occupying or colonial powers.
In this context, he refers to the expansionist “proposal” of the occupying state and falsely claims that the Security Council has “reaffirmed its pre-eminence, seriousness and credibility” since 2007. The fact remains that the Security Council, in just one preambular paragraph, merely “takes note” of that “proposal” in the same way in which the Council also takes note of the Frente POLISARIO proposal presented on 10 April 2007 to the Secretary-General. The Security Council, therefore, has never “reaffirmed” the pre-eminence of the Moroccan expansionist “proposal” nor any of the other attributes claimed by the representative of the occupying state. This is another example of his wilful misrepresentation.
Furthermore, he describes the expansionist “proposal” as “democratic”. The fact remains that Morocco, the occupying state, is the least qualified in the world to speak about democracy in any way because of its autocratic regime that is based on tyranny and denigration of human dignity, which strips Moroccans of their sense of citizenship and converts them into mere “subjects” forced to endure humiliating practices that are reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
The representative of the occupying state lauds the “recent highly symbolic support of France as a permanent member of the Security Council”. Although this “symbolic support” is not surprising given the “permanent links of “interdépendance”” existing between his country (protégé) and its (former) protector, actions carried out by countries in violation of their own international and erga omnes obligations should be condemned, not celebrated.
4 - Occupied Western Sahara is the largest prison on earth and a no-go zone for UN bodies, international observers and media
The representative of Morocco, the occupying state, claims that Occupied Western Sahara is “a true model” of development. Nothing is further from the truth than this unfounded claim. The only thing that the occupying state has brought to Occupied Western Sahara is genocidal war, expropriation of lands, obliteration of Sahrawi identity and heritage, impoverishment, plunder of natural resources, forced displacement and gross violations of human rights.
As documented by many international and African human rights organisations, the Sahrawis in Occupied Western Sahara are living in a veritable inferno in the largest prison on earth where they are subjected daily to brutal repression, terror and collective punishment at the hands of Moroccan repressive forces away from the scrutiny by the international community because of the media blackout imposed on the Territory.
The occupying state continues to pursue a large-scale scorched-earth policy through confiscating the lands belonging to Sahrawis, destroying their houses, displacing them forcibly, vandalizing their properties and undermining their livelihoods with the declared aim of uprooting them from their homes and lands and settling more Moroccan settlers and others in the Territory. These colonial practices are part of a systematic settlement-colonial plan aimed at perpetuating the illegal occupation of Western Sahara in flagrant violation of the rules of international humanitarian law and international law.
If the situation in Occupied Western Sahara were exactly as described by the Moroccan representative, why does the occupying state continue to prevent the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) from visiting the Territory for the eighth consecutive year despite the Security Council’s repeated calls on the occupying state to facilitate such visits (S/RES/2703 (2023))? Why does the occupying state continue to deny entry to foreign journalists and independent observers and deport those who manage to enter Occupied Western Sahara?
The answer is clear: Morocco, the occupying state, fears that the world would know about the atrocities and heinous crimes perpetrated by its repressive forces against Sahrawis in Occupied Western Sahara and the veritable inferno in which they have been living under occupation since 1975.
Since charity begins at home, as the saying goes, instead of propagating claims about the fictitious “colossal investments and structural development projects” in Occupied Western Sahara, the representative of Morocco, the occupying state, should be very concerned about the abject poverty, misery, and the inhumane conditions in which millions of his fellow Moroccans live, which continue to push many of them to risk their lives trying to reach Europe. To cite just one example, the world still remembers the horrible scenes of hundreds of desperate Moroccans, including women carrying their babies, as they swam on plastic bottles to reach Spain in May 2021.
In concluding, as we have demonstrated above, the claims made by the representative of Morocco, the occupying state, in his latest letter to the Security Council are merely a series of manifestly unfounded claims that are intended to distort the facts and hoodwink Member States. However, the representative of the occupying state is deluding himself if he thinks that he can mislead Member States by repeating the same lies and making the same claims, which have repeatedly proved to be totally false and deceptive.
I would be most grateful if you would bring the present letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council.
Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Dr Sidi M. Omar
Ambassador
Representative of the Frente POLISARIO at the United Nations and Coordinator with MINURSO