UNITED
NATIONS, April
24 -- Who can
have a letter
circulated by
the Security
Council
president to
the other 14
members? Until
now, on the
question
of Western
Sahara the
Frente
POLISARIO has
had its
letters
circulated.
But not this
time.
Inner
City Press
inquired why
not.
The
first answer,
given
exclusively,
was
that it was a
matter of
fairness and
consistency,
since the
Rwandan
presidency of
the Security
Council for
April had also
declined to
circulate a letter
submitted by
Somaliland on April
1.
But
with all due
respect for
Somaliland --
and we do have
respect --
POLISARIO is a
formal party
to a situation
on the
Security
Council's
agenda, a
referendum
which was
supposed to
have been held
long ago in
Western
Sahara.
Better
said, the
Sahrawi Arab
Democratic
Republic
(SADR), of
which the
Polisario is
the governing
party, is a
founding
member of the
African Union
and has full
diplomatic
relations with
most AU
members.
POLISARIO is
also a
recognized
party to the
dispute in Western
Sahara
and is named
in Security
Council
resolutions.
Further
inquiry
finds, as we
also exclusively
reported
earlier this
week,
that Rwanda's
negative
experience
with “non
state actors”
like
Human Rights
Watch has
put them in
the camp of
those who
believe only
the letters of
states should
be circulated.
Rwanda's
aversion
to Human
Rights Watch
is
understandable
-- as if some
kind
of fad, HRW
and its
director Ken
Roth have gone
entirely
one-sided on
the conflicts
in the Great
Lakes region.
But again,
POLISARIO is
not
Human Rights
Watch.
It
is pointed out
that POLISARIO
did meet with
Council
President
Gasana,
as did for
example
Algeria,
pushing the
African Union
line.
This
non-circulation
is a quirk, as
we see it, of
Rwanda's
recent history
and outlook.
We've already
opined, if
Human Rights
Watch actually
wanted to help
the people of
Western Sahara
try to get a
right
monitoring
component in
MINURSO, HRW
would have
stayed out of
it -
they burned
their bridges
with Rwanda
long ago.
But
we believe
Polisario's
letter should
have been
circulated,
and so
we
put it online,
here. And
we also
believe that
the US should
explain
why it backed
off pushing
for a human
rights
monitoring
component of
MINURSO.
Inner
City Press on
Wednesday was
told, in
transparency,
that on
Thursday
morning there
will be three
adoptions --
Mali, with its
foreign
minister
present,
Western Sahara
then Cote
d'Ivoire
sanctions --
then
a thirty
minute gap to
allow
statements at
the stakeout.
Will the US
answer there?
To
the end some
thought
Western Sahara
wouldn't be on
the agenda
Thursday
morning. But
there was very
little
discussion,
Inner City
Press is told,
after the
MINURSO draft
was finally
circulate to
the
15 members.
In
the past,
South Africa,
Uganda, Costa
Rica, pushed
to the end for
a
human rights
component.
Rwanda's
position,
given its
history and
recent
experience
with non state
actors like
Human Rights
Watch,
might be
understandable.
But combined
with Togo's
position, the
African Union
view is hardly
represented,
at least on
this issue, in
the Security
Council.
Likewise,
Inner
City Press on
Wednesday
asked two
African
speakers on
the
Middle East
why the
African Union
wasn't
speaking in
its name. Both
said that it
should be.
We'll see.
Watch this
site.
, 
