Annonce

Réduire
Aucune annonce.

Pourparlers au sahara Occidental et Proche Orient: deux modéles différents?

Réduire
X
 
  • Filtre
  • Heure
  • Afficher
Tout nettoyer
nouveaux messages

  • Pourparlers au sahara Occidental et Proche Orient: deux modéles différents?

    Article traduit de l anglais machinellement, je vous conseille donc de lire l'original!

    ".....
    Bien que le sort des pourparlers israélo-palestinien se trouve toujours sur le fil du rasoir, une attitude similaire de la part des Etats-Unis vers le conflit du Sahara occidental pourrait ouvrir la voie à une solution durable à l'un des plus anciens conflits en Afrique.

    Bien qu'il existe de nombreuses différences entre les deux conflits, dont les protagonistes des deux côtés m'empresse de faire remarquer, il ya également plusieurs parallèles indéniables. Ils sont à la fois sur l'annexion d'une zone géographique par un autre Etat résultant en un groupe de personnes soit à venir sous l'occupation ou le devenir. Dans les deux cas, les participants du bout des lèvres le résultat que la communauté internationale voudrait voir, mais avec leurs résultats boycott de telles actions. Les deux conflits ont fait des milliers de réfugiés vivant dans des camps ou en exil depuis plus de deux générations. Dans les deux cas, les principales parties sont inégales en puissance, d'un côté un État puissant soutenu par l'Occident et de l'autre une organisation de libération anciens alliés influents. Dans les deux cas, les États-Unis a été un fervent partisan, constante et indéniable de l'État occupant alors que du bout des lèvres aux droits de la nation dépossédée.

    Maroc, qui a pris le contrôle de l'ancienne colonie espagnole du Sahara occidental en 1975, a précipité une guerre avec le front nationaliste sahraoui Front Polisario, qui a été soutenu par l'Algérie et l'Union africaine. Maroc, avec un fort soutien de la France et de l'administration Regan, a été en mesure d'occuper la plupart du Sahara occidental au moment où le Conseil de sécurité se sont impliqués en 1988.

    Un autre parallèle important entre le Sahara occidental et le conflit du Moyen-Orient est que les deux processus de paix fait des progrès importants lorsque les Carter, Bush père et Clinton administrations maintenu un intérêt actif dans la recherche d'une résolution et fait pression sur les deux parties à faire des compromis. Inversement, les deux conflits considérablement détériorée sous l'administration de George W. Bush, qui a non seulement adopté une attitude plus passive, mais aussi un partisan sans vergogne vers le Maroc et Israël dans son deuxième mandat.

    Récemment avancer les choses sur les rails, l'administration Obama dit les protagonistes au Moyen-Orient que le chemin de la sécurité israélienne et un Etat palestinien passe par des négociations. Les parties au conflit du Sahara occidental doit être dit que seules des négociations seront Maroc et le Polisario être en mesure de définir le sens commun de la souveraineté et l'autodétermination. Ces négociations devraient être fondées sur l'échange de vues et de compromis, pas dicter les résultats.

    Un aspect important d'une initiative plus agressive au Sahara occidental sera la coordination du Conseil de sécurité. La Chine et la Russie ont eu tendance à laisser les Etats-Unis font le gros avec un certain soutien neutre de Grande-Bretagne. France, d'autre part, maintient une position sans ambiguïté, pro-marocain sur la question et l'Espagne, l'ancienne puissance coloniale au Sahara occidental, oscille entre les parties en fonction de la partie qui détient le pouvoir.

    Une initiative au Sahara Occidental signifie qu'il sera impératif que le Groupe des amis du Sahara occidental - Etats-Unis, France, Royaume-Uni, la Russie et l'Espagne - d'abord accepter qu'il n'y aura pas de jour entre eux en ce qui concerne le cadre des négociations basé sur les précédentes résolutions du Conseil de sécurité (c.-à une solution politique négociée qui prévoit l'autodétermination). En effet, s'il ya un besoin de pré-négociations au Sahara occidental, il est parmi les pays occidentaux qui revendique le plus d'intérêt dans la question.

    Au début, le Sahara occidental n'a pas besoin d'intervention de haut niveau de la Maison Blanche ou le Département d'Etat. Heureusement pour les États-Unis, ils ont la meilleure chose suivante: l'envoyé de l'ONU actuelle au Sahara occidental est un ancien diplomate américain Christopher Ross, qui apporte avec lui la neutralité du Secrétariat de l'ONU et l'oreille de Washington. Pour l'instant, tout ce qui est nécessaire pour relancer le processus de paix au Sahara Occidental est pour les présidents Obama et Sarkozy à la laisser parties connaissent les coulisses qu'ils doivent engager des négociations sérieuses, s'écouter les uns les autres et à s'impliquer dans un sens donner et recevoir . Puis un communiqué conjoint des États-Unis, la France et l'Espagne devraient suivre qui énonce clairement les termes de référence pour les négociations, établit un délai d'un an pour un accord et engage le Conseil de sécurité à un retrait du Sahara occidental, si aucun accord n'est conclu . En effet, les États-Unis devraient tirer parti de son droit de veto sur la mission de l'ONU au Sahara occidental, dont la France soutient le dos pour le Maroc et l'Espagne pour sa culpabilité historique, pour obtenir de Paris et de Madrid à bord. ....."

    Posted By Anna Theofilopoulou, Jacob Mundy Wednesday, October 27, 2010

    Foreign Policy


    The recent decision by the Obama administration to invite Israel and the Palestinian Authority to engage in serious negotiations over the Middle East conflict should be instructive for those interested in resolving one that seems almost as intractable -- the Western Sahara dispute.

    Key to this new effort in the Middle East conflict is (1) the US is sponsoring and supporting the talks; (2) the US has demanded that the two negotiate seriously, tackle the difficult subjects that have trounced previous attempts for resolution; and (3) the US has given the two sides a one-year deadline.

    Though the fate of the Israel-Palestinian talks still hangs on a knife's edge, a similar attitude on the part of United States towards the Western Sahara dispute might pave the way to a durable solution to one of Africa's oldest conflicts.


    Although there are many differences between the two conflicts, which the protagonists on both sides hasten to point out, there are also several undeniable parallels. They are both about the annexation of a geographical area by another state resulting in a group of people either coming under occupation or becoming homeless. In both cases the participants pay lip service to the result that the international community would like to see but with their actions boycott such outcome. Both conflicts have resulted in thousands of refugees living in camps or in exile for over two generations. In both cases the key parties are unequal in power, on the one side a powerful Western-backed state and on the other a former liberation organization with influential allies. In both cases, the US has been a strong, steady and undeniable supporter of the occupying state while paying lip service to the rights of the dispossessed nation.
    suite de l article dans la page suivante
    Dernière modification par TAGHITI, 27 octobre 2010, 09h47.

  • #2
    ................................................su ite de l article précédent!

    Morocco, who took control of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara in 1975, precipitated a war with the Sahrawi nationalist front Polisario, which has been backed by Algeria and the African Union. Morocco, with strong support from France and the Regan administration, was able to occupy most of Western Sahara by the time the UN Security Council got involved in 1988.

    Another important parallel between Western Sahara and the Middle East conflict is that both peace processes made important strides when the Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations maintained an active interest in seeking a resolution and pressured both sides to make compromises. Conversely, both conflicts drastically deteriorated under the George W. Bush administration, who not only adopted an increasingly passive attitude but also an unabashedly partisan one towards Morocco and Israel in his second term.

    Recently getting things back on track, the Obama administration told the Middle East protagonists that the path to Israeli security and Palestinian statehood is through negotiations. The parties to the Western Sahara conflict should be told that only through negotiations will Morocco and Polisario be able to mutually define the meaning of sovereignty and self-determination. These negotiations should be based upon the exchange of views and compromise, not dictating outcomes.

    An important aspect of a more aggressive initiative in Western Sahara will be the coordination of the Security Council. China and Russia have tended to let the United States do the heavy lifting with some neutral support from Britain. France, on the other hand, maintains an unambiguously pro-Moroccan position on the issue and Spain, the former colonial power in Western Sahara, vacillates between the parties depending on which party holds power.

    A serious initiative in Western Sahara means that it will be imperative that the Group of Friends for Western Sahara -- United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia and Spain -- first agree that there will be no daylight between them regarding the framework for negotiations based upon previous UN Security Council resolutions (i.e., a negotiated political solution that provides for self-determination). Indeed, if there is any need for pre-negotiations in Western Sahara, it is amongst those Western states claiming the most interest in the issue.

    At the beginning, Western Sahara does not need high-level intervention from the White House or the State Department. Luckily for the United States, they have the next best thing: the current UN envoy to Western Sahara is former US diplomat Christopher Ross, who brings with him the neutrality of the UN Secretariat and the ear of Washington. For now, all that is needed to jumpstart the peace process in Western Sahara is for Presidents Obama and Sarkozy to the let parties know behind the scenes that they must engage in serious negotiations, listen to each other and get involved in a meaningful give and take. Then a joint communiqué from the US, France and Spain should follow that clearly lays out the terms of reference for the talks, establishes a one-year deadline for an agreement and commits the Security Council to a withdrawal from Western Sahara if no agreement is reached. Indeed, the US should leverage its veto over the UN mission in Western Sahara, which France backs for Morocco and Spain backs for its historical guilt, to get Paris and Madrid on board.

    In Western Sahara, unfortunately, the motivation for spending the political capital necessary for peace is far less compelling than in Israel and Palestine. Since the 1991 ceasefire, most of the violence in Western Sahara has either come in the form of Morocco's often-brutal repression of dissident Sahrawis or the structural violence of thousands of Western Saharan refugees living in harsh exile in camps in Tindouf, Algeria. Apart from renewed Polisario threats to return to arms if its national rights are not recognized, the situation is not one that seems to threaten regional stability or US interests. Indeed, Morocco's 100,000 strong military occupation of Western Sahara makes it one of the most secure areas in a region increasingly seen as infested with an Al-Qaida franchise. When compared to the suffering and instability wrought by the Israel-Palestinian conflict on daily basis, it is no wonder that Western Sahara has earned low prioritization.

    Nonetheless the Sahrawi refugees must come out of 35 years of exile in the camps to live a regular life in Western Sahara. Morocco needs to address its own domestic socio-economic issues and stop pouring resources of unknown size into a territory that it can only keep calm and quiet through repression. Further, regional economic integration and security cooperation on terrorism in Northwest Africa needs to come out of the deep freeze engendered by the enmity between Rabat and Algiers over Western Sahara.

    As in the Middle East, there are no guarantees that the status quo is sustainable in Western Sahara (indeed, US Special Envoy Ross has recently noted the explicit non-sustainability of the status quo). It is now clear that leaving the parties to their own devices in the Middle East has only served to undermine the conditions for a viable two state solution. Similarly, the chances for a peaceful, stable and long-term resolution for Western Sahara will only diminish as the Security Council allows Morocco and Polisario to wage war-by-other-means without respite.

    Often one hears in Washington that the parties must first show the political will necessary to solve the issue. Only then will the US back an aggressive peace initiative in Western Sahara. The problem with this argument is that it leaves the parties in the driver's seat. Anybody who understands the conflict should know that this will never happen. As long as either Morocco or Polisario can veto the peace-process, whether directly or through their respective proxies, the Security Council will be held hostage to a deteriorating situation.

    Anna Theofilopoulou covered Western Sahara and North Africa in the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations from 1994 to 2006. She worked closely with former US Secretary of State, James A. Baker, III throughout his appointment as Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General on Western Sahara.

    Jacob Mundy holds a PhD from the University of Exeter's Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies. He is coauthor of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press). Find more information about the book at wsahara.stephenzunes.org

    Commentaire

    Chargement...
    X