Actualités du Sahara Marocain

SS400 a écrit:

http://www.hibapress.com/details-68940.html

WRANGEL a écrit:

Arbalo a écrit:

Après réflexion je me suis rendu compte que nos ennemis ne sont pas rusés comme on le pensait, et que les nôtres n'exploitent pas les points faibles des autres parties.

Tout d'abord la question qu'on doit tous se poser et que notre diplomatie doit mettre en claire, comment des "réfugiés" peuvent-ils former une armée de milices ?????  peut-on être réfugié et militaire ???????? à ma connaissance les réfugiés fuient les guerres, ils ne peuvent ni déclarer une quelconque guerre, encore moins menacer de reprendre les hostilités.

Deuxièmement, comment peut-on s'autoproclamer "République" (bien sur sans aucune condition tangible) et au même temps demander l'autodétermination ??? C'est complètement paradoxal. Pour voir plus claire, est-ce que la république de la Tunisie peut-elle demander un référendum d'autodétermination ?????!!!!
En gros ils confirment d'eux-même que leur "état" est fantoche.

Troisièmement, comment un état fantoche peut-il faire partie d'une organisation continentale (l'UA) ?????

""""nos ennemis ne sont pas rusés et les nôtres n'exploitent pas les points faibles des autres parties""""

Ne prends pas le Diwan et ses serviteurs pour des lapereaux de 3 semaines.
Les notres savent pertinemment que nos ennemis déclarés ne sont pas rusés et si nous n'avons pas pu exploiter jusqu'ici leurs faiblesses c'est parce que la resolution du probleme ne dépend pas de nos ennemis mais de nos soit disant amis occidentaux (us gb espagne france) pour qui le statut-quo est pain beni.

Si aujourd'hui nous pouvons faire bouger les lignes dans cette affaire c'est grace a la conjoncture et aux changements geo-strategiques mondiaux et moyen orientaux qui empechent nos ""amis"" de continuer a nous faire chanter.

Nous avons tenu des decennies en avalant bien des couleuvres MAIS en reussissant a preserver l'essentiel.
Ce qui nous permet d'etre en position aujourd'hui de profiter de cette fenetre de tir ouverte entre autres par la destabilisation engendrée par les barbus le terrorisme trans-national et le retour de la russie dans le grand jeu.

Citation :

Si nous n'avons pas pu exploiter jusqu'ici leurs faiblesses c'est parce que la resolution du probleme ne dépend pas de nos ennemis mais de nos soit disant amis occidentaux

atlas a écrit:

"
on construit une mosquée à 1milliards$, et pendant la construction de cette mosquée, on signe un cessez le feu en raison notamment de gros problemes financiérs"

je me souviens.......on avait demandé à chaque marocain...100 DH !!!!!CONTRIBUTION VOLONTAIRE .............zaama...


Une honte......qd je la vois....je pense à toute  cette megalomanie et je suis pas certain que le tout puissant ai bien apprécié....mais bon, H2 n'avait pas que des qualités, et sincerement j,ai aimé ce souverain.....

http://www.tamurt.info/erdogan-qualifie-de-polisario-dorganisation-terroriste/ a écrit:

Erdogan qualifie de Polisario d’organisation terroriste

TURQUIE (Tamurt) – Le président turc, Erdogan, a fait une déclaration claire aujourd’hui sur la position officielle de son pays avec le Maroc. L’information est largement diffusée par la presse marocaine. Pas seulement, il a affirmé sont soutien indéfectible au Maroc dans le dossier des régions Sud de ce pays, mais il a sévèrement critiqué l’organisation de Polisario et l’Algérie qui la finance.

Pour Erdogan le Polisario est un risque permanent dans la région d’Afrique du Nord, mais c’est une «  organisation terroriste qu’il faut combattre ». Pour Erdogan la communauté internationale doit soutenir  le Maroc pour ne pas affecter cette région par un conflit armé qui ne fera que propager le terrorisme dans la région. L’analyse d’Erdogan est juste. Le Polisario est perçu de plus en plus dans le monde comme une organisation déstabilisatrice et ne représente que les décideurs algériens.

Reste seulement à savoir si l’Algérie réagira aux propos d’Erdogan, elle qui a sacralisé la cause Sahrouie. Presque aucun autre pays au monde ne reconnaît le Polisario, sauf l’Algérie. La création de cette organisation par Boumèdienne en 1973 était dans l’objectif de ne jamais réaliser l’union nord-africaine et créer surtout un Etat arabe aux pays de Tamazgha.

Lounès B pour Tamurt

Morocco says U.N. Western Sahara decision 'irreversible'

AVEROUES a écrit:

WaW quelle séance de torture que ces journalistes ont exercés sur ce pauvre porte parole

J'invite tout le monde à lire la daily press briefing du 24 mars, une vidéo ce serait la bienvenu. Les journalistes voulaient passer un message à pokémon que l'opinion publique n'est pas attardée mentale et que le discours du secrétariat général ne convainc personne. Et ils invitent clairement pokémon à reconnaître ses erreurs...

Shugan188 a écrit:

AVEROUES a écrit:

WaW quelle séance de torture que ces journalistes ont exercés sur ce pauvre porte parole

J'invite tout le monde à lire la daily press briefing du 24 mars, une vidéo ce serait la bienvenu. Les journalistes voulaient passer un message à pokémon que l'opinion publique n'est pas attardée mentale et que le discours du secrétariat général ne convainc personne. Et ils invitent clairement pokémon à reconnaître ses erreurs...

Je l ai vu en direct ,Le Spokesperson a vraiment était cuit par les journalistes aujourd’hui à un moment il a pris 10 secondes de silence pour répondre à une question.

Citation :

Question:  Thanks, Farhan.  My question is on Morocco and the fairly muted response we've seen from the Security Council on this issue.  Is the Secretary‑General concerned that this dispute and the lack of support he seems… he's not get… the lack of support from the Security Council speaks to a broader problem between the Secretariat and the UN Security Council, where bilateral concerns of individual members seem to trump the wishes of the Secretariat… whether you're talking about the arms embargo in South Sudan, whether you're talking about humanitarian access in Syria, and now the question of Morocco?  Does the Secretary‑General believe that the UN Security Council's lack of support is undermining his authority and the institution that he represents?

Deputy Spokesman:  I'd formulate it the other way around.  What the Secretary‑General believes is that the Council works best and is, by far, at its most effective when it is united and when it is capable of expressing its united stance.  That's why it's important, for example, on resolutions which the Security Council has passed, that the Security Council is able to take action to make sure that its will in those resolutions is respected and respected by all parties.  And so that is just a general point across the board.  When they do that, obviously, it is much easier to ensure that the resolutions of the Security Council will be implemented and its will be upheld.  Yes?

Question:  Some other questions, but on that… on Western Sahara, and I guess what seemingly actually muted maybe response by the Secretariat, I've seen two… at least two, and I believe there's more, wire service stories quoting an unknown UN official saying very forcefully that the Security Council should act and that MINURSO [United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara] should be back in.  So, I wanted to ask you, because it seems strange to some, if this is the Secretariat's position, why do it on background or, in one case, on condition of anonymity?  What's the basis of a UN official to seek anonymity to say MINURSO should go back to Western Sahara?  Why would this be done this way?


Deputy Spokesman:  You know, for a reporter, you seem to be upset when people talk to the press.

Correspondent:  I'm not.  I'm upset when it's done selectively on background…

Deputy Spokesman:  Sometimes people talk to the press, and depending upon the circumstances, they choose the conditions under which they do that.  That's how it goes.

Question:  Will DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations] give a press conference about MINURSO and the impact of Dakhla… of pulling the people out of Dakhla or only on background?

Deputy Spokesman:  At this stage, you have seen that I've spoken about that with the language that they have prepared for me.


Question:  Thank you, Farhan.  Just on MINURSO, this Mission has over 30 international staff and more than 160 local staff working for the operation of the… of its military component.  Yet, you've been saying that the military component of MINURSO cannot go about its regular work.  Isn't that misleading the international opinion?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, I did not say it cannot go about its regular work.  In fact, its regular work is going on.  I'm saying that its regular work has been impaired.  We do not have… bless you.  We do not have such an overwhelming amount of staff in any peacekeeping mission that we can afford to have a number of people away from their posts at any point in time.  We are continuing as best we can, but ultimately, that work has been impaired.  And what we want is for us to be able to do our work with full efficiency in the way that we're mandated to do.

Question:  A follow‑up, if I may?  We understand that everything is working fine in the military component of MINURSO and that you've been saying lately that the security of the… of the MINURSO itself is at stake.  There is… there has no… there has been no incidents reported, so how do you square with that?

Deputy Spokesman:  I didn't say the security of MINURSO itself, of the peacekeepers, is at stake.  The point is for security and logistical considerations, we had to withdraw, temporarily relocate some of our staff to Las Palmas.  At this stage, our concerns continue to be that, as time goes on, that we will have the resources, including things, for example, crucially like bulk water and energy, to allow us to sustain conditions for our personnel.  If that happens, if they're able to go about their work, they will go about their work as best they can.  Yes, Abdelhamid?

Question:  Back to the question of Morocco.  Does… given the personal nature of the dispute of the use of the word "occupation" by the Secretary‑General of the dispute in Morocco, does the Secretary‑General believe that negotiations between the two parties, Western Sahara and Morocco, are still a viable option given the nature of this personal sort of dispute over the use of a word.  Does he believe… does he still have confidence in the process?  And is the end… is the goal still a referendum on self‑determination?

Deputy Spokesman:  The goal, ultimately, is to resolve the final status of Western Sahara.  We intend to abide by all the relevant Security Council resolutions.  We certainly intend, as we do with all peace efforts around the world, to keep trying with negotiations no matter how hard it may seem or how intractable the parties may be at a given part in time.  This is not the only case in the world where the United Nations is facing a long‑running dispute where the parties have extremely hardened views.  But, you will have seen over time many of the cases that you… that have been resolved or that are being resolved right now are ones that people told us could never be done.  It takes time.  It takes patience and effort, but I think it can be.  Yes, Nabil?

Question:  A follow-up on Western Sahara?  Yes.  Do you feel… like, I… I'm sure Mr. [Jeffrey] Feltman and the SG's office are in daily contact with Security Council members.  Do you feel that the Council is closer now to agree on an… on a united… to be united on this matter?  And since the SG stands by his language on Western Sahara and used "occupation" several times, does this mean that he's calling…

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, he used "occupation" once.

Question:  Yeah, but you repeated here twice, I think, or three times.  So, does this mean that the SG calls to end occupation, or what's his stand on this?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, what… like what I said is the entire point is to deal with the issue of the status of Western Sahara, however that may be decided amongst the parties and the Sahrawi people.  This is where we stand on that.  And regarding the Council, ultimately, the matter is in their hands.  We believe that there's a general will in the Council to respond.  How they will choose to do it is up to them.  Yes?

Question:  Just back to Morocco.  Does the Secretary‑General today believe that Morocco is occupying parts of Western Sahara?

Deputy Spokesman:  Ultimately, this is… the question of the status is a complex question.  We want it to be resolved in a way that's agreeable to all parties.  The Secretary‑General said what he said.  We explained why he said what he said.  And he continues to stand by that.  Butm we want this to be resolved in a way that ultimately comes out in the interest of all parties.  We're not trying to take any side over any other side.  What we're trying to do is get to a situation where the status of Western Sahara will be resolved.  This is something that's been lingering for a long, long time.  It's been a cause of much tension in the region.  And with the right amount of goodwill, with the right amount of faith… of good faith among the parties, we believe it can still be resolved even now.

Question:  Will he use the word "occupation" again?

Deputy Spokesman:  I can't predict the future.  What I can say is that he said what he meant to say.  Yes?

Question:  I don't understand this whole situation.  The Secretary‑General… you explained that the Secretary‑General said what he said and explained what led him to say what he said.  But, the word "occupation" has meanings.  It has legal meaning, actually. And you say that he wants to reduce tension, and yet he's not backing off from the word "occupation" and is not explaining what the word meant other than to say I… I did it because I was upset to see those people and the situation and so on.  Is that conducive to reducing tensions?  As far as it goes now, it actually has raised tensions.

Deputy Spokesman:  The Secretary‑General, throughout his trip, wanted to make sure that he could, in fact, reduce the tensions that have been existing regarding the Western Sahara issue.  He remains amenable to deal with all the parties, each point of view on this.  So, he has made it very clear that he understands the… their differing positions, but he wants sincerely to bring them together to deal with the problem that has gone on for too long.

Question:  But, he has driven them apart as of yet.  I mean, maybe a course correction is needed?

Deputy Spokesman:  He's explained what he had said.  The question is, is there will among people to de‑escalate the situation?  We certainly think that there's no cause, no reason for this.  There's no reason to escalate this particular situation at all.  And the Secretary‑General is certainly not intending or trying to do that, but ultimately, it's up to the parties themselves to take their own actions to make sure that they will also de‑escalate.  Joe?

Question:  Well, to Benny's point, the term "occupation", which triggers certain obligations on the occupying Power under the Geneva Convention, so does the Secretary‑General, perhaps implicitly, endorse the full application of the Geneva Convention obligations?  That's part of the question.  And the second is, you sort of indicated a neutral stance, if you will, toward the question of referendum, leaving it up to the Security Council, but isn't it the case that the very title of the peacekeeping force contains the word "referendum"?

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes.  Yes, of course.

Question:  So, therefore, why is he sort of taking a… on the one hand, using the term "occupation" and second… and then not answering the question about the final status?

Deputy Spokesman:  The Security Council, in its resolution, gives us mandates.  We act in good faith to carry out those mandates.  What we're trying to do is see how can the mandate given to us by the Security Council be carried out.  It's been a complex task, and it's been a complex task for several decades now.  But we're continuing to do that.  And that includes trying to deal with how the Council resolutions regarding a referendum can be implemented.

Correspondent:  What about… sorry.  What about the question of the full implications?  Perhaps the Secretary‑General didn't realize it, but… when he used the term "occupation"… but it does trigger certain legal obligations of the occupying Power under the Geneva Conventions…

Deputy Spokesman:  And the Secretary‑General…

Correspondent:  … which have often been cited in the case of Israel.

Deputy Spokesman:  Joe, if I may, it's not just a word that came out of the Secretary‑General's head.  This is a word that has been used by the General Assembly itself in resolutions dating back to the late 1980s.  So… so you would actually have to ask that… that's a question really for the Member States as much as for anyone.  Yes?

Question:  Thank you, Farhan.  A follow‑up on Western Sahara:  You said that he used the word "occupation" only once.  Does it mean that he didn't intend on using it, or was it part of a strategy, or it's just that it's a… he misspoke?

Deputy Spokesman:  To get back to the note to correspondents that we issued that put this better than me.  Hold on one second.  Let me just read out what we said at the time.  During his visit, the Secretary‑General personally witnessed a desperate situation in a Western Sahara refugee camp resulting from decades of life without hope in the harshest conditions.  He stressed that the Sahrawi refugees deserve a better future.  He referred to occupation as related to the inability of Sahrawi refugees to return home under conditions that include satisfactory governance arrangements under which all Sahrawis can freely express their desires.

Correspondent:  Just a follow‑up on that.  On the Moroccan side, from my understanding, the refugees can go back, but apparently, there's a problem where there's contained… they are contained in these camps, and they cannot leave these camps.  So, just a comment on… on this…

Deputy Spokesman:  You'll have seen what we've said including in our periodic reports on the situation.  I'd just refer you to those.  Yes, Benny?

Question:  You said before that the main aim of the Secretary‑General is to reduce tensions between the parties, but the tensions between the parties hasn't changed.  What changed is the tension between Morocco and the Secretary‑General.  The question is, is there any way to reduce those tensions, including, by the way, in lowering the rhetoric in this room that keeps repeating every day the same thing?  Maybe there's a way to change course that will reduce tension on that front, not between the parties, but between the Secretary‑General and the… and Government of Morocco.
Deputy Spokesman:  Bless you again.  All right.  Now that we're past that, I certainly hope what I'm… it's not… I'm not being seen as engaging in rhetoric against anyone.  I'm not trying to do that.  And we're not trying to do that on behalf of the Secretary‑General.  For this particular dispute, we, like I said, don't take any special side.  We are a neutral party in this.  We want to bring the parties together.  We want them to negotiate with each other in good faith.  The Secretary‑General has great respect for the people of Morocco, as he does for the Sahrawi people.  What he wants to make sure ultimately is that something can be devised to break this impasse.  This is a conflict that he had not been dealing with directly on the ground until now, and he really believes that there has to come a time when you take some positive action to move parties forward.  In this case, as you can see, there's been some misunderstanding about what his effort is, but he doesn't do this out of any stance of opposition to anyone.  He's trying for peace, and that is what his focus is.  Yeah?

Question:  But, just to follow up on this, the issue that apparently exacerbated even further the situation between the Secretary‑General and the Government of Morocco is the Secretary‑General insistence that people can't demonstrate against him in the streets because something to do with his prestige…?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, no, no, no.  No, no, that's not it.  It's not that people can't demonstrate…

Correspondent:  He said so in a statement that you read from this podium.

Deputy Spokesman:  Everyone has the right to demonstrate.  No.  But, what I read… part of what he was suggesting is his… is that there was a misunderstanding of his actions, but also that these demonstrations were in some way prompted in a way that was disfavourable to the interests of the United Nations.  The United Nations continues to go about its work.  We don't want the public at large, including the public in Morocco, to misunderstand what we're doing.  That's part of what he was trying to get at.  People are free to protest when they're protesting sincerely.  They're free to assemble.  This is the case with everything no matter… and no matter what the views are, even if those views are against us.  That fine.

Question:  So, the United… United Nations is a party in this?

Deputy Spokesman:  No. No, we're not a party.

Correspondent:  I mean, you can't pretend that the United Nations has no…  

Deputy Spokesman:  You know what the word "party" means, and we are not party to this.

Question:  Well, in this case, it is a party.  The whole war now is between the Government of Morocco and the Secretary‑General.

Deputy Spokesman:  There's no war between the Government of Morocco and the Secretary‑General.

Correspondent:  Not war‑war.  War of words.  War of words.

Deputy Spokesman:  I wouldn't even call it a war of words.  I mean, I don't think what I've been saying in the last few minutes is discouraging, is it?  I'm not trying to.  Anyway, Oleg.

Question:  Thank you.  So, is the Secretary‑General still questioning the sincerity of the protesters in Morocco?  And there were protests here last week with more than 600 Moroccans coming from all over the United States, and I just want to… wondered if there's a questioning around the sincerity of this…

Deputy Spokesman:  It's not a questioning of their sincerity.  He believes that they misunderstand the actions that he's taken, which are not taken in opposition to anyone.  He is not… he has not, in many cases, done the things of which he's accused, in terms of the accusations that he has somehow taken one side over the other.

Question:  So, again, it brings us back to the word "occupy", and the Moroccans seemed to have read it in its legal aspect, and that's why they felt that it was… that the Secretary‑General took sides and the fact that he didn't review his position later made it as a… sound as a confirmation on his position.  And so that's the…


Question:  Also, on Morocco, go back to that, no court has ever said that the Sahara was part of Morocco.  I don't know if you want to use the word "occupied" or not, but it's never been deemed legally part of Morocco by anyone but Morocco, yeah?

Deputy Spokesman:  That's not a question, so I don't really have anything to say to that.

Correspondent:  She did say: “Yeah?”

Question:  It’s a question mark.  Is that not true?

Deputy Spokesman:  You know the historical facts as well as anyone.  Yes?

Deputy Spokesman:  Like I said, he has explained his position in terms of what I've just read out to you, which we put out some time ago.  He has spoken to the Foreign Minister.  We are… we continue to be in touch with our Moroccan colleagues.  We are clarifying matters, but it is simply not logical to think that he would throw away a process of many, many years by saying a single word on a single occasion. You and then you.

Question:  My last question.  So, I mean, the SG waited till his last year in office to visit the region and to use this language on Western Sahara.  Is he worried or concerned now that he might maybe leave the office with unfinished job? because we see the tension now between the parties, and it's basically a reaction to his word and his language.  So, is he worried that he's going to leave the office with unfinished job on this matter?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, there's time yet in his mandate, so he can get it resolved.  There's time enough to solve problems, if there's will.  Yes?