The Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations, Ambassador Omar Hilal, affirmed yesterday, Tuesday in New York, that Algeria, the main party in the regional dispute over the Moroccan Sahara, must acknowledge the abject failure of its separatist project in the Sahara.
Hilal highlighted that “Algeria today is faced with a choice: either engage within a peaceful approach that respects the principle of good neighborliness and the peaceful settlement of disputes, or persist in the abject and costly failure of the Polisario agenda, with billions of dollars, and at the expense of the well-being of the Algerian people who are queuing up to purchase the simplest foodstuffs.”
In his intervention during the regular session of the 24th Committee of the United Nations, held between June 10 and 21, the Moroccan ambassador called on Algeria to draw lessons from the bitter failure of its separatist project in the Moroccan Sahara.
Hilal continued by saying: “Instead of regurgitating its speeches about its alleged defense of the right to self-determination, and claiming false neutrality that no one believes except itself, Algeria should rather have acknowledged three established facts: that the Sahara has always been Moroccan, and will remain so until God inherits the land.” And that the Moroccan initiative for self-government is the only and only solution to this conflict, within the framework of the Kingdom’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that Morocco will continue, with all determination, the strategy of developing its southern regions, which are in the process of becoming a regional and continental pole.”
After mentioning the establishment of the Committee of 24 in 1961, by the United Nations General Assembly, in order to implement Resolution 1514, which enshrines the principle of self-determination, and which was adopted by the Assembly itself on December 14, 1960, Ambassador Hilal pointed out the shortcomings that have been plaguing, for years, the implementation of the resolution. 1514, in addition to an inappropriate use of the tasks of the Committee of 24. He said: “Those who drafted Resolution 1514 were keen, from the core of their wisdom, to explain in detail the mechanisms for its implementation by completing it with another resolution, namely Resolution 1541.”
The ambassador noted that Resolution 1541, which some seek to ignore, clearly defines the three options for applying the principle of self-determination, which include independence, free association with an independent state, or integration. He added that Resolution 2625 issued in 1970 added the option of any other freely chosen political status.
“However, some countries,” Hilal continues, “that were blinded by ideologies dating back to a bygone era, and focused on the only option of independence at the expense of the other two alternative options, intensified their malicious maneuvers with the aim of making the Committee of 24 a committee for balkanization,” noting that “self-determination does not mean that it is a path toward balkanization.” Independence cannot be achieved at the expense of the territorial sovereignty of countries.”
Resolution 1514 (Article 6) clearly affirms that “any attempt aimed at partially or completely undermining the national unity and territorial sovereignty of any country is contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
The diplomat noted that these same countries exaggerate their interpretation of Resolutions 1514 and 1541 by linking self-determination to the referendum process. The fact is that these two decisions do not refer at all to a referendum, which is nothing more than a mere mechanism for expression. The diplomat noted that these two resolutions also do not require, in order for their relevant provisions to enter into force, any referendum consultation.
He stressed that “it is unfortunate to note that the Committee of 24 has deviated from its original mission and to note the absence of any reference to the remaining basic elements of self-determination from our discussions or even in the reports of this committee.” It is also unfortunate that we see the reformulation of the mission of the Committee of 24 by dressing it in ideological baggage.
The Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations, indicated that, on the basis of the original mission of the Committee of 24, Morocco presented to the attention of this Committee, in 1963, the issue of its Sahrawi territories that were subject to Spanish domination.
In parallel with his efforts within the Committee of 24, Hilal adds, in 1975 Morocco sought the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, noting that the court did justice to the Kingdom by proving the existence of legal ties of allegiance between the sultans of Morocco and the tribes of the Moroccan Sahara, which definitively confirms Morocco’s sovereignty over its Sahara.
Hilal recorded that, in accordance with this recognition, the Kingdom of Morocco concluded the Madrid Agreement with Spain in 1975, thus dedicating the return of the Sahara to its motherland, Morocco, after 91 years of Spanish occupation.
He stated that “the United Nations General Assembly ratified this agreement in its Resolution No. 3458B, dated December 10, 1975, which makes the process of Morocco’s restoration of its territorial integrity consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the spirit and operative words of Resolution 1514.”
The ambassador expressed his regret that this issue had turned into a bilateral regional dispute, after Algeria was involved in violating Article 6 of the aforementioned Resolution 1514, by seeking to violate Morocco’s legitimate rights in its desert and to undermine its sovereignty and territorial integrity, through the formation of the armed separatist “Polisario” group, harboring, arming and financing it. .
#Selfdetermination #independence
2024-06-13 09:56:39