Tweet
Une analyse intéressante -arue dans les colonne du journal arabe Al Hayat- sur le principe d´autodetermination, la proposition marocaine comme une solution respectant le principe d´autodetermination des peuple, et surtout la position "de principe" de l´Algerie sur ce sujet . La conclusion au dernier paragraphe me parait très pertinente.
___________
The Right of Self-Determination, Morocco and Western Sahara
Abderrahim Sabir Al-Hayat - 06/05/07//
The Western Sahara issue one of the oldest disputes in the Arab world between the two North African heavy weights, Morocco and Algeria. While Morocco has always insisted on its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Algeria continues to promote "as a matter of principle" the right of secession for the Sahrawi population. The dispute has adversely impacted the progress and development of the North African societies, as an economic and political bloc, and created an atmosphere of enmity between the two sub-regional powers in the Maghreb.
Morocco has always insisted that Western Sahara is an integral part of the Moroccan territory and that the International Court of Justice's decision of 1976 confirmed historical links between Sahrawi tribes and the central authority throughout the centuries. The Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y Río de Oro (Polisario), which exists largely in Algeria, and has been financed and armed by the Algerian government, continues, on the other hand, to call for secession of Western Sahara through referendum. Throughout the last two decades, the UN has maintained a mission in Western Sahara, at first for the purpose of organizing a referendum on self-determination. The former UN envoy, James Baker, proposed plan of 2003 "for the Self-Determination of the People of Western Sahara," was rejected by Morocco as outdated. The plan followed the same four-year autonomy formula as the 2001 proposal, except that the final status referendum included the option of independence.
On October 31, 2006, the Security Council passed Resolution 1720, "reaffirming its commitment to assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara." The UN has maintained throughout the years a pragmatic approach, calling on all the parties, including Algeria as part to the conflict, to come to a "mutually acceptable solution," while supporting the right to self-determination for the Saharawi population.
By late 2006, Morocco mediated a domestic dialogue between Sahrawis, on modalities to self-determination. The Advisory Council on Saharan Affairs, a body of Sahrawi dignitaries developed through consultation with Sahrawis a new plan for self-determination, understood as full autonomy under the umbrella of Morocco. Last February, Morocco verbally briefed officials from several countries, including Spain, France, the US, and Great Britain on this new self-determination plan. The proposal, almost two years in the making, was finally presented to the Security Council in April.
The right to self-determination is one of the most important and perhaps controversial rights because it is the vehicle through which many African states achieved independence from colonialism. Even today, many ethnic groups, including some in the Arab world, continue to use self-determination to make claims for self-rule and/or independence.
The question of whether the right of self-determination is capable of judicial enforcement has elicited heated debate at the United Nations during the drafting of the Bill of Human Rights. The outcome of the controversy was the bifurcation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The contention that self-determination is a political principle and not a right formed the basis for Western countries opposition to its inclusion in the two instruments. The West argued that self-determination was incompatible with a human rights convention based on the protection of the individual and, as such, this "collective" right could not be enforced by the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) in the same manner as individual rights. Other criticisms related to the economic aspect of the right of self-determination. Nevertheless, the West took part in drafting the text of Article 1 of the two Covenants. Its inclusion in both Covenants indicates that self-determination is both a civil and political right and an economic, social, and cultural right. Furthermore, the right's inclusion in Part I of each Covenant underlines its importance.
Another hotly debated issue was whether minorities (ethnic or otherwise) should be accorded the rights of self determination. The Soviet Union's proposal that protection of minorities be dealt with in the context of the right of self-determination under Article 1 was defeated because the rights of minorities are ensured in a separate provision of the ICCP, Article 27. The ICCPR has a provision for judicial enforcement through individual petitions pursuant to the First Optional Protocol. (Although the Committee held in previous cases that the First Optional Protocol only provides a procedure for petitions concerning violations of individual rights set out in Part II of the Covenant in Articles 6 through 27.) Therefore, groups that attempt to assert their right of self-determination will have to depend on inter-state communication procedures and state reports in order to clarify the Committee's interpretation of this right under the ICCPR.
The African Commission on the other hand has asserted that all peoples have the right of self-determination. This right, it said, may be "exercised in any of the following ways: independence, confederalism, unitarism, or any other form of relations that accords with the wishes of the people but fully cognizant of other recognized principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity ." The Commission also suggested that where people is able to establish a breach of the right to participate in government coupled other verifiable human rights violations, self-determination in the form of secession may be possible under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR). Even though the Commission correctly recognized the close relationship between the right to self-determination and the right to participate in government - as guaranteed in Articles 20 and 13, respectively- it was also mindful to emphasize its duty to uphold the fundamental character of the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The Cairo resolution adopted in1964 by the Organization of African Unity (OAU, now African Union) Assembly of Heads of State declared that "all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence" in a manner that is in harmony with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity in the OAU Charter. While the Cairo resolution is viewed as a political one, it is still relevant to the post-colonial application of self-determination in setting the standard by which self determination would be implemented in Africa.
The Cairo resolution was motivated by boundary conflicts in early 1963. Since the Cairo Resolution, claims of self-determination in the form of secession are prohibited under the ACHPR in favor of claims that can be implemented without altering existing state boundaries. The Cairo Resolution and the subsequent decisions affirming it amount to an implicit approval of autonomy claims given that they can only be implemented in harmony with Article 3 (3) of the former OAU Charter. In other words, since self-determination has been recognized as a justiciable right under the ACHPR, the prohibition of the secessionist claims suggested the approval of other claims of self-determination, which are not inimical to sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
It is about time for Algeria to give a chance for the new Moroccan plan of self-determination of the Sahrawi people to work, and allow the Maghreb societies to address the real challenges facing the sub-region, including economic progress, illiteracy, instituting the rule of law, peaceful transfer of power, and strengthening governmental institutions. The argument of supporting the right of independence as a "matter of principle" by financing and arming a corrupt entity, the polisario, that represents itself, undermines any legitimacy to the Algerian claim. The Maghreb states need to move forward into a different direction that will enable them to address the European Union as a political and economic bloc for the well being of their own peoples. Continuing to refuse a solution to the Sahrawi conflict is harming a genuine Union of the Maghreb states, delaying the populations of the region real progress, and prolonging the humanitarian suffering of the Sahrawi population in the Algerian camps of Tinduf .
source: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinio...b84/story.html
___________
The Right of Self-Determination, Morocco and Western Sahara
Abderrahim Sabir Al-Hayat - 06/05/07//
The Western Sahara issue one of the oldest disputes in the Arab world between the two North African heavy weights, Morocco and Algeria. While Morocco has always insisted on its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Algeria continues to promote "as a matter of principle" the right of secession for the Sahrawi population. The dispute has adversely impacted the progress and development of the North African societies, as an economic and political bloc, and created an atmosphere of enmity between the two sub-regional powers in the Maghreb.
Morocco has always insisted that Western Sahara is an integral part of the Moroccan territory and that the International Court of Justice's decision of 1976 confirmed historical links between Sahrawi tribes and the central authority throughout the centuries. The Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y Río de Oro (Polisario), which exists largely in Algeria, and has been financed and armed by the Algerian government, continues, on the other hand, to call for secession of Western Sahara through referendum. Throughout the last two decades, the UN has maintained a mission in Western Sahara, at first for the purpose of organizing a referendum on self-determination. The former UN envoy, James Baker, proposed plan of 2003 "for the Self-Determination of the People of Western Sahara," was rejected by Morocco as outdated. The plan followed the same four-year autonomy formula as the 2001 proposal, except that the final status referendum included the option of independence.
On October 31, 2006, the Security Council passed Resolution 1720, "reaffirming its commitment to assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara." The UN has maintained throughout the years a pragmatic approach, calling on all the parties, including Algeria as part to the conflict, to come to a "mutually acceptable solution," while supporting the right to self-determination for the Saharawi population.
By late 2006, Morocco mediated a domestic dialogue between Sahrawis, on modalities to self-determination. The Advisory Council on Saharan Affairs, a body of Sahrawi dignitaries developed through consultation with Sahrawis a new plan for self-determination, understood as full autonomy under the umbrella of Morocco. Last February, Morocco verbally briefed officials from several countries, including Spain, France, the US, and Great Britain on this new self-determination plan. The proposal, almost two years in the making, was finally presented to the Security Council in April.
The right to self-determination is one of the most important and perhaps controversial rights because it is the vehicle through which many African states achieved independence from colonialism. Even today, many ethnic groups, including some in the Arab world, continue to use self-determination to make claims for self-rule and/or independence.
The question of whether the right of self-determination is capable of judicial enforcement has elicited heated debate at the United Nations during the drafting of the Bill of Human Rights. The outcome of the controversy was the bifurcation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The contention that self-determination is a political principle and not a right formed the basis for Western countries opposition to its inclusion in the two instruments. The West argued that self-determination was incompatible with a human rights convention based on the protection of the individual and, as such, this "collective" right could not be enforced by the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) in the same manner as individual rights. Other criticisms related to the economic aspect of the right of self-determination. Nevertheless, the West took part in drafting the text of Article 1 of the two Covenants. Its inclusion in both Covenants indicates that self-determination is both a civil and political right and an economic, social, and cultural right. Furthermore, the right's inclusion in Part I of each Covenant underlines its importance.
Another hotly debated issue was whether minorities (ethnic or otherwise) should be accorded the rights of self determination. The Soviet Union's proposal that protection of minorities be dealt with in the context of the right of self-determination under Article 1 was defeated because the rights of minorities are ensured in a separate provision of the ICCP, Article 27. The ICCPR has a provision for judicial enforcement through individual petitions pursuant to the First Optional Protocol. (Although the Committee held in previous cases that the First Optional Protocol only provides a procedure for petitions concerning violations of individual rights set out in Part II of the Covenant in Articles 6 through 27.) Therefore, groups that attempt to assert their right of self-determination will have to depend on inter-state communication procedures and state reports in order to clarify the Committee's interpretation of this right under the ICCPR.
The African Commission on the other hand has asserted that all peoples have the right of self-determination. This right, it said, may be "exercised in any of the following ways: independence, confederalism, unitarism, or any other form of relations that accords with the wishes of the people but fully cognizant of other recognized principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity ." The Commission also suggested that where people is able to establish a breach of the right to participate in government coupled other verifiable human rights violations, self-determination in the form of secession may be possible under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR). Even though the Commission correctly recognized the close relationship between the right to self-determination and the right to participate in government - as guaranteed in Articles 20 and 13, respectively- it was also mindful to emphasize its duty to uphold the fundamental character of the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The Cairo resolution adopted in1964 by the Organization of African Unity (OAU, now African Union) Assembly of Heads of State declared that "all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence" in a manner that is in harmony with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity in the OAU Charter. While the Cairo resolution is viewed as a political one, it is still relevant to the post-colonial application of self-determination in setting the standard by which self determination would be implemented in Africa.
The Cairo resolution was motivated by boundary conflicts in early 1963. Since the Cairo Resolution, claims of self-determination in the form of secession are prohibited under the ACHPR in favor of claims that can be implemented without altering existing state boundaries. The Cairo Resolution and the subsequent decisions affirming it amount to an implicit approval of autonomy claims given that they can only be implemented in harmony with Article 3 (3) of the former OAU Charter. In other words, since self-determination has been recognized as a justiciable right under the ACHPR, the prohibition of the secessionist claims suggested the approval of other claims of self-determination, which are not inimical to sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
It is about time for Algeria to give a chance for the new Moroccan plan of self-determination of the Sahrawi people to work, and allow the Maghreb societies to address the real challenges facing the sub-region, including economic progress, illiteracy, instituting the rule of law, peaceful transfer of power, and strengthening governmental institutions. The argument of supporting the right of independence as a "matter of principle" by financing and arming a corrupt entity, the polisario, that represents itself, undermines any legitimacy to the Algerian claim. The Maghreb states need to move forward into a different direction that will enable them to address the European Union as a political and economic bloc for the well being of their own peoples. Continuing to refuse a solution to the Sahrawi conflict is harming a genuine Union of the Maghreb states, delaying the populations of the region real progress, and prolonging the humanitarian suffering of the Sahrawi population in the Algerian camps of Tinduf .
source: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinio...b84/story.html
.
Commentaire