EU is currently fishing in occupied Western Sahara in violation of the wishes and interests of the Sahrawi people - and thus in violation of international law. Read the entire transcript of the seminar on illegal EU fisheries in the European Parliament, 16 November 2010.
Ivo Vajgl Ladies and gentlemen, let me start with todayâs seminar. Unfortunately I have bad news for all those who have translation for the working language will be English, and I'm sorry, we were not able to provide a translation. Who is not able to express themselves in English is, I would say democratically entitled to use any other language but not everybody will understand, so lets go that way. I'm very glad that we got a panel (yes, in French) of very distinguished people, and Iâm also very glad that I'm seeing very distinguished members of parliament. Let me particularly greet Mme Eva Joly the chairman of the Committee on Development; a very important body for our topic of today. Maybe I will say in advance only: This is not a seminar, this is not a conference against anybody, it is a meeting of the people who want to be pro something. We want to spread the message of freedom, of human rights, of democracy, of respect for the international law. And in this all respects the topic of West is quite an example of how problem which last for several decades already can become worse and worse if it is not dealt with actively, if everybody who is involved in does not take his responsibility. I would like to underline, in this respect, the responsibility of European Parliament and European Commission. We should take an active role in trying to solve the problem. We should spread message to everybody: to improve the situation in Western Sahara. As regards on] the human rights and the, I would say, humanitarian catastrophe, which might occur, if the problem will not be dealt with a due responsibility. And we invite also those who are more a part of the problem, for the time being, than a part of the solution to cooperate in good faith. So the organisers of this meeting, besides myself and my colleague: Romeva i Rueda, RaĂŒl of the Greens, I am member of the parliament group of the ALDE group of Slovenia. Is also the Western Sahara Resource Watch, I am thanking their representative for what they are doing. They are very active, they are pushing us. And we accept to being pushed into this debate. I think that would be for the beginning. Maybe I should say also that as this initiative was started the fishery agreement was in the gros plan as the focus point. The things which happened in Western Sahara in the last weeks, and months, actually put also our debate in a different light. And push us also to take more responsibility in the European Parliament for the solution of the actual problem, which is a political long standing problem, and we are going to talk about it today. The fisheries agreement is just one piece of the problem, could be also one piece of the solution. If we decide to pursue the way which has been given to us as protagonists of the international relations, and the relations with certain states. So, I will finish here and give the word to my co-chairman RaĂŒl Romeva i Rueda. Thank you.
Carlos Ruiz Miguel First of all, I want to thank the invitation to participate in the European Parliament. Itâs a great honour for me to be in the democratic, representative body of the peoples of Europe. And this building represents precisely the way to understand Europe as a democratic, human rights-conscious, political unity. In the past, there were other attempts to get unity of Europe. Some of them were very regrettable; for example, Hitler tried to unite Europe. But what we are representing here in this Parliament, what the MEPs represent here, is that the unity of Europe could be built upon a different basis: democracy and human rights. The Treaty of the European Union, in its preamble, says that the Member States confirm their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of the rule of law. Member States are resolved, according also to the preamble of the Treaty of the European Union, are resolved to implement a common foreign and security policy, in order to promote peace, security, and progress in Europe, and in the world. If we go to the provisions of the Treaty of the European Union, in article 3 §5 we can read: in its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests, and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, as well as to the strict observance of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. Well, what does international law say, what does the Charter of the United Nations say? Well, the Charter of the United Nations says that, in article 2, that all member states must build their relations in a peaceful way without use of violence against others. And article 1 says that the purpose of the United Nations is to achieve self-determination. This is what the Charter says. The Charter also imposes to administering powers in article 73 some special obligations according to the colonized peoples. And in article 74 imposes obligations to all Member States, even if they are not administering powers of non-self, non-autonomous territories. So, these provisions of the Charter have been developed in the international law through several United Nations Resolutions. First of all Resolution 1514, establishes an obligation to grant immediately independence to Non-Self Governing Territories. And also, the UN Resolutions establish economic obligation not only to administering powers but also to every Member States. Among these obligations are the obligations not to promote any investment or economic activity which can long the occupation, which can consolidate the occupation or the colonization. Now, let us go back to the European Union. The European Union has two main international agreements with Morocco. The first of all is the Treaty establishing an Association with Morocco, signed in the year 2000. According to this Treaty, in article 2, both parties agree to respect democracy, human rights and -according also to the preamble of this Association Treaty - both parties accept the international law and to attach to the principles of the United Nations. In the preamble of the Agreement, of the Association Agreement, both parties considering the importance of the United Nations, particularly the observance human rights, which form the very basis of the association. And if we got to article 2 of this Association Agreement, we read that the respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall inspire the external policies of the community and of Morocco, and also the domestic politics, and shall constitute an essential element of this agreement. Well, I think that the events that we have just seen, everybody, on television, in the media, are evidence that these principles are not being respected. And if we go back to this association agreement, we can read in article 90, that the parties shall take any general or specific measures required fulfilling their obligations under this Agreement. If either party, now in this case the European Union considers that the other party has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Agreement - and I think this is the case â it may take appropriate measures. Well, at this very moment, I donât know any measure at all from the European Union vis-Ă -vis this international breach of the obligations of the Kingdom of Morocco. Article 93 allows the European Union, allows either party, to denounce the Treaty. So the question is: what are we waiting for? Because we can say that the denunciation of a Treaty is a very dramatic decision. Well, it could be so. But if we donât want to denounce the Treaty, letâs go to article 90: what are the measures taken by the European Union to deal with this situation? The other main Treaty linking the European Union with Morocco, as you all know, is the Fisheries Agreement. This Agreement was signed pretending it was consistent with international law. Some relevant people here in the European Parliament, tried to hide the legal opinion of the Parliamentâs services declaring that this agreement is illegal. Now we have just shown the dramatic consequences of the breach of international law. The breach of international law is not just a formal question, it has material consequences. The people who demonstrate in the capital of Western Sahara, El AaiĂșn, asked for a participation on the natural resources, on the benefits of the natural resources of their land. So, if we donât respect international law, we must face the consequences, which are not peace, not security, not democracy, not human rights. Thank you.
RaĂŒl Romeva Then I will give the floor to Francesco Bastagli, who was Kofi Annanâs special envoy for Western Sahara.
Francesco Bastagli [28:12] Thank you very much, Chair. That was very good, it lasted 10 minutes. Mine is a bit longer, but I hope to add something to the discussion. Basically, what has been really presiding over European policy or attitude towards Western Sahara, is fairly simple. I mean if such a thing exists in a cohesive manner: it has basically been Realpolitik. If you look at what either individually or collectively the European countries, how they looked at the Sahara issue, what really dictated choices was not compliance with international legality or concerns over the human rights of the Saharawi people, but rather, as I say, expediency. And then of course there are different considerations led to this Realpolitik. To some countries it is a matter of economic interests, as is the case of Spain in relation to this Fishing Agreement, as you know the vast majority of vessels that have access to territorial waters of Western Sahara are from Spain. Sometimes it is a concern over national security. Sometimes, as it is the case of France, it is a concern over certain geostrategic interests. You know France has a priority attention to this Francophone crescent of Western Africa, and a very close historic link not just to the Moroccan country but to the Alauite monarchy and so on. So there are different considerations that have led basically to the same result. One reason why this is so, is also that in Europe there is a sort of monopoly for determining the line on Western Sahara, left to a couple of countries basically - which Iâve just mentioned, in fact. Other countries have been wavering between either collusion or indifference. Every now and then there is some malaise or some reservations expressed. There was the case for the Fisheries Agreement when Sweden had some reserves, but then the Agreement went through anyway. Recently in the Security Council, Austria had some problems; Ireland has been occasionally coming forward with some serious concerns. But the bottom-line, is that when push comes to shove, Europe as a whole and the European countries individually have prized expediency and immediate convenience over what really they should stand by according to what weâve just heard. Now of course, you see this in different fora. Coming from the UN, I mention the UN also because of t-course, the paramount responsibility to give to the Saharawi people their dues rest with the Security Council of the United Nations, which is the custodian of the UN Charter, where there is a whole chapter devoted to the rights of peoples in Non-Self Governing Territories. Basically this is an issue of decolonisation, thatâs what this is about. Now in the Security Council, of course, when it debates periodically Western Sahara, there is a kind of high-priest of the Moroccan interests, which is France. France in the Security Council over decades has been making sure that nothing happens that goes against either the immediate or long-term strategic and political interests of the Moroccan agenda. And as we are witnessing yet again, major violations of the human rights in the occupied territories, this is a topic that is emblematic also of Franceâs attitude. A few months ago, there was a major diplomatic effort by France in the Security Council, to have even a reference to human right in a Council Resolution concerning Western Sahara. The two words, the two words, âhuman rightsâ were the object of a major offensive by France to make sure that they wouldnât appear in the Resolution. And the Resolution has not asked for any action or decided that the UN should do anything about it: it just acknowledged that it was a problem. This of course reflects to my own personal experience. What I could sense in French... occasionally I used to go to Rabat to discuss or present my work or discuss our concerns in Western Sahara. The French embassy in Rabat was so emotional about denying even the existence, or recurrence of any problem related to human rights in Western Sahara. That was appalling to me, for the red faces with which the existence of this problem was denied. Even more emotional than the Moroccan interior ministry, almost. Now, France has been the main point country in relation to this matter in the UN. But of course, others bear responsibility. France has this role also because as a permanent member of the council has a particular influence on this proceedings. But other countries, we see this in the General Assembly, when the fourth committee discusses decolonisation, again which is the issue of Western Sahara, there is a very bland and anodyne presence of Europe. And even now in fact, if today as you may know [33:46] the Security Council will discuss the latest developments in Western Sahara, it will be at the request of Mexico. The EU, you find the same mood or environment. In the European Union what they found most striking recent months has been the event in Granada where for the first time since the Lisbon Treaty, I think, the EU engaged with a country on advanced status, it was a big hullabaloo about the groundbreaking nature of this gathering, high level session between the European Union and Morocco. Now, if you read the outcome document of that session you will see that there is a very pathetic reference in one opening paragraph to the fact that the EU and Morocco agree that the Western Sahara issue should be resolved within the context of ongoing negotiations sponsored by the UN. I mean, this is an almost 30 year old story. And thatâs it: then they get rid of the concern, and then there is a whole 7 or 8 pages about human rights, about what the Europe expects to make an even closer partnership with Morocco which is already extremely close. I mean Morocco is the greatest beneficiary of European assistance in the region and all the rest. So there is no mention what so ever, even on several paragraphs on human rights. Never ever the European Union felt the need to elaborate a bit on some concern or the situation of the illegal occupation of the territory, violation of human rights, of the denial of basic rights and entitlements of the Saharawi people. And that mood, in a way you still sense it in Europe. I was reading, the day before yesterday, the declaration of Lady Ashton related to what happened over the past two weeks in the territory. I think itâs bland, itâs pretence, it just tries to say that basically there are to parties, that are urged to be moderate, and not to upset - something that doesn't exist - that is a process of pacification, that is not there. As if â putting on the same plane a repressive regime that is controlling and dominating a population and the pacific and poor victims of such repression, and they are put on an equal basis in a passive lease that I found very revealing of the mood of the European Union and the definition of European foreign policy. [36:22] Coming to the Fisheries Agreement, I think it is in this context that one could better understand what happened four or five years ago. When this agreement came about, I was there associated somehow to the activities of the UN. It was known, and nobody can pretend to be so naĂŻve as not to know, that by allowing access to Western Sahara territorial waters, to these fishing fleets of Europe, this provision was in violation of some basic tenets of international law. [37:01] Its something that dates back to time immemorial that the occupying power or authority can not freely dispose of the natural resources of a territory under its control. This goes back almost to Roman times. There is plenty of legislation, the Law of the Sea, all over the place⊠There was the opinion of the UN legal adviser that this was not something that should be entertained, and yet the agreement went forward. And then of course, as we have heard, there has been also subsequently an opinion of the Legal Office of the European Parliament. So the legal argument is known. It's illegal. This shouldnât have happened, and of course the only point that one has to hope for, is that if and when this agreement is renewed with Morocco there should be a clause, excluding explicitly access to Western Sahara Territorial waters from the agreement itself. [37:59] By doing so Europe would do nothing more courageous than to follow the examples of such militant and revolutionary countries as the United States of America. Routinely the United States in their agreement with Morocco in a number of commercial and other issues requests a clause saying that the tenets provided here does not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. So on this one the US seems to be much more abiding to international law, and obligation than Europe is. Now, these signs are related to this agreementâŠ.I could not read them because I donât sit here, and I know parliament is very active on this issue. [38:39] That one thing that worried me a bit which I felt I should mention: I understand that the European Commission is part of this process has asked Morocco to inform as to the use made of the income of the fisheries agreement. I also know that Parliament was intending to have a visit to the territory, but thatâs a separate matter. To me, the mere fact that the Commission should ask Morocco that very question is a mistake. On legal grounds, on political grounds because you give Morocco a role of interlocuteur valable, of partner or responsible agent in this process which it doesn't have. You legitimize somehow, de facto at least, a role that doesn't belong there. So even the question itself, in my view, is out of order. As to the substance, of course I think the only judges to whether these money or these resources are spent in the best interest of the Saharawi people can be given by the Saharawi themselves. And the answer is being seen in the streets of Smara or El Aaiun or Dakhla over the past two weeks. The protest originated also from the social, economic disaster, from the depression of human rights and so on â there you have your answer. I think nothing is needed more for the European Union to decide not to renew this agreement in these terms.
Last point, briefly. Itâs obvious, that experience shows after 35 years that this kind of Realpolitik, this practical way of going about this, doesnât work. So itâs not just wrong in the sense that it is in disregard of the obligations of the international community to the Saharawi people. But also it doesnât work politically. The problem does not go away by itself: itâs an open wound. And that wound hurts the Saharawis, hurts also the peace and security of the region. So here you have for Europe an opportunity to put into practice all this trite rhetoric, for instance, about conflict prevention. You know there are books written by the European Union about one of the priorities in foreign policy for the nascent diplomacy would be conflict-prevention. Here you have it: this is a typical case-study in conflict prevention. If nothing is done to resolve peacefully, but also in the interest of international law, that situation, you have a brewing conflict there, which doesnât just relate to Morocco, Polisario, Algeria: the whole Maghreb. In fact the security of the region is at stake. So here is a chance for the European Union to engage in some real work in conflict-prevention. To do so, whatâs important â I think - would be to broaden the engagement of governments within Europe on this issue, to break a bit this monopoly, which is basically Franco-Spanish in different ways monopoly. More countries need to be involved, one thinks of the Nordics, this one thinks of Ireland, one can make a list. But there is a potential, especially in the light of the fact that the problem is there: the blood is on the streets, the human rights are trampled every day. So if there is a sense of responsibility, an interest in trying to move this forward, more countries have to engage; countries maybe that donât have such a close association historic, economic, and close interests and long history with this. But countries that can look at it from a bit of a distance, a more balanced approach, that will take into greater account international legality. Thatâs one. Second; there is a sort of âgood cop, bad copâ routine developing in Europe, where you have parliaments, it could be the European Parliament, maybe national parliaments in Spain, in France, that are somewhat sympathetic, at least some of them. So you have these parliamentarians flying into El Aaiun on a little plane and not being allowed off the plane by the Moroccans, and then complaints and so on. So parliaments have this. But when it comes to governments, then the line is very pro-Moroccan, very conservative, very on the negative side of this. So I think the challenge for parliamentarians in this forum or maybe in national parliaments, is to move government policies, because theyâre not moving. And if governments donât move, parliamentarians can try and have a visiting mission every other week, but it will not really make much of a difference. Finally, I think that today there is an opportunity in New York; the Security Council will debate this matter. And I know that in a week or so there will be some decision made by the Parliament here. My only appeal is to try to make it actionable; something has to be said on which action should be taken. The time of advocacy, the time of making the legal point and so on which is very important, is behind us. Now, the time is to really move and force some proactive and concrete measure that will really bring this whole issue into the parameters of international legality and respect for human rights. [44:01]
So - very quickly in English â what Iâm saying to Aminatou is that in this very moment the Socialist Group is discussing the terms of an oral question with resolution which we intend to present in this Parliament. I'm saying that to her because apparently, when she entered this room, she made a statement to the media saying that the Spanish socialists are blocking a resolution in favour of the Western Sahara. Thank you very much. Muchas Gracias.
Ivo Vajgl I would like to make my personal comment on the question of how European countries are behaving. And one, I will start with your question, it is well founded, that among the countries that have recognised the right of the Saharawi people to have their own sovereign state, that there is no European country. I think it would be really time that European politics would turn the page and that there would be not only two or one country who are showing a certain respect for the human rights issue and international law in the situation like Western Sahara. But that it would be a mainstream attitude of European politics. We have a chance now when we have a full fledged European Parliament after the Lisbon treaty and we can start influencing the European politics and maybe even shape a common European foreign and security politics, which we don't have now. So I would put my hope into the project that we slowly try to persuade some more countries in the European Union - maybe the group of countries who would take the risk to be honest and have the respect for international law and the rights as its priority. Let's do it, let's put pressure on the national Parliaments and national governments of the European Union in order to undertake this step. As I told, I've never considered it as a step against a country, against even Morocco, but for the respect of the international law. And from this perspective, Morocco is wrong. The country is wrong. It is the breach of all rules of international law and the rules of human rights. So, I would like to inform you that there are now several initiatives in these couples of days, in different groups. - I'm very happy with the news that the Socialists are considering the resolution on Western Sahara. My group, ALDE, are discussing very seriously. We have a draft resolution which I think can satisfy the most of the expectations which have been expressed today. And I'm pretty sure that after what happened in the tents of Western Sahara ten days ago â there is a push - it is sad that this kind of events are needed sometimes to bring forward an issue. But I think that it has contributed to the readiness to move forward with this question and to cut this stroll of hypocrisy about the problem of Western Sahara. Thank you.
The EU considers to pay Morocco to fish in occupied Western Sahara. An EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement from 2013 would be both politically controversial and in violation of international law.
The international Fish Elsewhere! campaign demands the EU to avoid such unethical operations, and go fishing somewhere else. No fishing in Western Sahara should take place until the conflict is solved.