UN envoy: "negotiations for the sake of appearances"
A translation of an interview with Peter Van Walsum, that appeared in a Dutch newspaper last saturday. Van Walsum is the UN Secretary-General's personal envoy and mediator in the Western Sahara conflict.
The negotiations in the conflict about the Western Sahara between Morocco and the independence movement Polisario under supervision of the UN are ‘a farce’. That says Peter van Walsum, the personal envoy of the UN-secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and mediator in the conflict in an interview with this newspaper. With regards to speculations about his leave as UN-mediator van Walsum says: “I've always told Morocco and Polisario: If you have enough of me, just write a letter to the secretary-general. Then the problem will be fixed in a minute”. With this comment, van Walsum reacts to the severe criticism he received from Polisario and Algeria, backing up the independence movement. Last month, van Walsum called the referendum for independence of the Western Sahara ‘unrealistic’. Since then he's become persona non grata for Polisario and the negotiations came to an end. The main part of the Western Sahara was occupied by Morocco 33 years ago. According to van Walsum, talks about independence are of no use, since the Security Council has never been willing to use military violence to force Morocco into accepting this option. By rejecting the option of independence, van Walsum had hoped that Polisario would have chosen for hard negotiations on a form of autonomy for the region. The UN-mediator says he has no idea whatsoever how the talks will be continued and what his role in the negotiations will be.
He would have violated the image of the UN. Made himself impossible as negotiator. Undermined his neutrality. Made a joke out of human rights. Seldom a personal envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN was so heavily attacked as van Walsum. The Dutch diplomat must mediate in the conflict about the Moroccan occupied Western Sahara, but since a couple weeks he has been declared persona non grata by the independence movement Polisario and Algeria. Van Walsum lies under fire because he has given the Security Council, apart from the report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, his frank opinion that negotiations concerning an independent Western Sahara are ‘unrealistic’. Morocco and Polisario have fruitlessly bickered as from 1991 on who should be given voting power in a referendum concerning the future of the area. As from 2004 Morocco rejected a referendum regarding a possible independence and came with a proposal for autonomy under the Moroccan flag. Polisario hold to a referendum concerning independence. But according to van Walsum discussions have little sense, because the Security Council will never force Morocco to accept a referendum concerning an independent Western Sahara. The negotiations stopped. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has gone mute on the issue. Van Walsum's (73) good mood seems not to have suffered under the circumstances. In his house in The Hague, beside a thermos with coffee, he explains in detail the past three years negotiating on Western Sahara.
Q – Did you force the situation because you didn’t like to go on as mediator?
A - I cannot say that I have detonated the matter in order to get out myself, but on the other hand I did not think: oh dear, I'm making things impossible for myself. I got the feeling that I had been put down here to keep the matter going on indefinitely. From all sides I got to hear: Go on, keep going! Things are heading in the right direction. I got an awful lot of compliments, especially from Algeria that supports Polisario. It was marvellous how everything proceded. Then I thought: no sorry, something does smell very wrong here.
Q - You felt abused?
A - I thought: if I do not give my opinion now, then in a year time I will feel incredibly abused. Nobody believes, as it happens, in a solution. Morocco over-estimates its own position and Polisario and Algeria have no other aim but to keep the negotiation process going until the Security Council becomes so desperate that it agrees with a referendum on independence. Polisario wanted to use the normal rules-of-the-game of decolonisation and self-determination, because the Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony. Morocco has said for its part that those rules do not apply because the area was theirs before the colonisation. When Morocco started to march into the area, Algeria has very explicitely insisted on the application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which makes a military reaction to agression possible. By ignoring this call, the Security Council has made it clear from the start that it doesn't want to use violence. That has become a clear line, each time the Security Council has rejected the enforcement of a solution. That is holy in this case.
Q - Polisario and Algeria no longer want to negotiate with you. By articulating your personal opinion, have you disrupted the negotiations?
A - All parties have met in Manhasset, a suburb of New York. That consultation was a mockery, a farce, a false game. If I continue to sit here as a good boy and do what is expected of me, then I will not mediate four rounds, but eight, twelve or sixteen rounds. There is no solution, because the two main points of view of the parties are irreconcilable on the matter of a referendum concerning independence. For Polisario it's essential and for Morocco it's unthinkable. That's a problem that cannot be resolved. Of course I could've simply resigned, but I thought: let’s try to do things a bit different this time. What if I explain the Heads of Government that this a dead end street. What if I put it as it is in my report. Take a gamble. If you are so convinced that the negotiations are completely blocked, then it is not entirely crazy to give the developments a shot in a certain direction. The problem is that I don’t know which direction it goes on now. You say that they no longer want to have me as mediator, well that is fine with me, because I’m not that eager anymore to go on either. But I have always said to Morocco as well as to Polisario: if you have enough of me, write a letter to the Secretary-General. Then the problem will be fixed in a minute. But I didn’t get any news of the Secretary-General that he has received anything of the kind. Which means that I really have no idea how the situation is. Actually I don’t know anything at all.
Q - They criticise you for not taking serious the rights of decolonised people. They call you immoral.
A - I think that is such a terribly unfair argument. The moral dilemma is that Polisario is more on the right side than Morocco. But because the Security Council will never force Morocco into a referendum on independence, they actually choose the status quo. That is to say: a deadlock with no prospects. Polisario has been in the refugee camps for 33 years. Is it morally fair to accept that another generation of Polisario children grow up in these camps? I suggest something else: try to convince Polisario to enter into hard negotiations for a serious and guaranteed form of autonomy under the Moroccan flag. I have visited the Polisario camps, but I've never had the opportunity to ask the opinion of the residents about this option. What I'm saying is: you must take reality into account. Legally speaking, Polisario the best papers, but because of the way the Security Council has chosen to act, it has never been of any to them for the last 33 years. My suggestion, but that is entirely my own opinion and certainly that of the Secretary-General, is that the Security Council should call upon both parties to temporarily experiment with autonomy without independence. Maybe they'll discover that this is the only way out of the deadlock. If it does not work, they can go back to the initial position without nobody loosing anything. I think that is certainly not an immoral proposal. If Polisario wants to talk about autonomy than they have a very strong position. Morocco is desperately looking for legitimacy.
Q - You have presented your opinion to the members of the Security Council, separately from the report of the Secretary-General. Polisario and Algeria suggest: van Walsum is no longer supported.
A - I have not committed insubordination! In this case, the Secretary-General has not put my personal opinion in the official report. He has left it out to avoid whatever kind of sensitivity. Quite logically, I found that regrettable, but that does not automatically mean that there's a disagreement. It obviously would be weird if I was not able to report my findings to the Security Council. I had the freedom to report it to the Council and that was what I have done.
Q - With respect to content, there is no disagreement?
A - I must confess that I do not know. I do not know the reason why the Secretary-General did not want my opinion in his report to the Security Council.
Q – When you started as a mediator have you been in touch with your predecessor, the American diplomat James Baker?
A - Yes, I've met him in Houston and we talked extensively. He found it a bit incredible that someone took that job, haha.
Q – Seems that he was right.
A - Yes, but I didn’t carry on for seven years, after two and a half years it was already obvious to me that things aren't working.
Africa's last colonySince 1975, three quarters of the Western Sahara territory has been illegally occupied by Morocco. The original population lives divided between those suffering human rights abuses under the Moroccan occupation and those living in exile in Algerian refugee camps. For more than 40 years, the Saharawi await the fulfilment of their legitimate right to self-determination.
Since 1975, three quarters of the Western Sahara territory has been illegally occupied by Morocco. The original population lives divided between those suffering human rights abuses under the Moroccan occupation and those living in exile in Algerian refugee camps. For more than 40 years, the Saharawi await the fulfilment of their legitimate right to self-determination.
