Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche Cattedra di Diplomacy and Negotiation THE UN MEDIATION IN THE WESTERN SAHARA SCENARIO RELATORE Prof. Pasquale Ferrara CANDIDATO Elia Trevisan Matr. 631962 CORRELATORE Prof. Francesco Francioni ANNO ACCADEMICO 2017/2018 2 INDEX INTRODUCTION 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND a. The Origins of the Dispute b. The Madrid Accords and the Western Sahara War c. From the UN Settlement Plan onward 2. MEDIATION a. Theoretical Background b. Mediation Styles 3. JAMES BAKER (1997-2004) a. James Baker’s Appointment And The Spirit Of Houston b. The Framework Agreement c. The Peace Plan d. Overall Assessment 4. PETER VAN WALSUM (2005-2008) a. The Beginning Of A New Mediation Style b. The Parties’ Proposals c. The Manhasset Negotiations d. Overall Assessment 5. CHRISTOPHER ROSS (2009-2017) a. The Appointment and the Informal Meetings b. The Continuing Stalemate c. A New Approach d. Overall Assessment e. The Situation Nowadays CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEXES ABSTRACT 3 4 INTRODUCTION: The conflict over Western Sahara has interested bunches of experts of international relations and diplomacy since the end of the war between Morocco and the Polisario Front in 1991. In this scenario, the United Nations plays a key role in trying to mediate and to solve, once for all, such dispute, which is still going on after almost thirty years. The question at the basis of this thesis comes out rightly from these attempts of mediation made by different Personal Envoys of the UN Secretary-General throughout the years. Indeed, the aim of this paper is precisely that of answering to the following question: which mediation style have been mainly adopted by each of these Personal Envoys? Anyway, as it will be explained later, these mediators have often adopted more than one style, combining different strategy in order to achieve a mutually acceptable, definitive and long-lasting solution for the dispute over the final status of Western Sahara. However, in order to find an exhaustive answer to the question previously formulated, the analysis, which regards a specific time span from 1997 to 2017, will be structured as follows. The first chapter will constitute an historical background of the entire sequence of events, going from the final years of Spanish to the Madrid Accords, from the birth of the Polisario Front to the end of the war between it and Morocco and the subsequent ceasefire. This first chapter will serve in order to know the historical background prior to the beginning of the on-going negotiations, conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. The second chapter, instead, will provide a theoretical framework about what mediation is, how it is conducted, which kinds of mediation can be identified and, more important, which are the main styles that a mediator could adopt. With regards to this last point, the classification used is the one put forward by William Zartman and Saadia Touval in their book, International Mediation: Conflict Resolution and Power Politics. The third chapter will regard the work of James A. Baker as the UN Secretary-General Personal Envoy for Western Sahara from his appointment in 1997 until his resignation in 2004. The analysis will focus on his mediation style along with his achievements and the difficulties he faced. Eventually, at the end of the chapter there will be enough space for a final assessment of his work. The fourth chapter will follow basically the same structure of the third one, but the mediator studied will no more be James A. Baker, but rather the Dutch diplomat Peter van Walsum. He has 5 been appointed after Baker resignation in 2004, but he has remained in office for less than four years, since the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon did not renew his mandate. As already done for Baker, the analysis will deal with van Walsum’s approach to mediation and his mediation style, but also with his achievements. The final chapter will regard the last UN Secretary-General Personal Envoy for Western Sahara: Mr Christopher Ross. Appointed in 2009, he has been the last mediator that has tried to solve the dispute over Western Sahara. As already done for his two predecessors, this paper will examine his mediation style, as well as the obstacles he has overcome in dealing with Morocco and the Polisario Front. Furthermore, there will be room to consider the influence that a changed international context had on Ross’ activity. Eventually, the conclusions will be helpful in order to reorganize the analysis and to answer the core question posed above. In addition, there will be a final comparison between the different mediation styles adopted by each of these UN Secretary-General Personal Envoys for Western Sahara. In conclusion, it is important to stress the fact that this paper will exclude, on purpose, any examination of both the work of Mr Horst Köhler as the current UN Secretary-General Personal Envoy for Western Sahara and the fisheries deal between the European Union and Morocco. With regards to the former, it is surely too soon to analyse correctly the mediation style of Köhler since he took office basically only one year ago. Anyway, there will be a quick mention regarding his work in the final section of the fifth chapter. With regards to the latter, there will not be any reference to the role of the EU in the negotiations because otherwise there would have been a risk of going off topic. 6 CHAPTER 1: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND THE ORIGINS OF THE DISPUTE Until 1975, Western Sahara was part of the Spanish colonies and was named Spanish Sahara. Indeed, the crown of Madrid detained this territory since 1884 when, at the famous Berlin Conference, all the European powers agreed upon the establishment of a Spanish protectorate over the territories of Segui El Hamra and Rio De Oro. Soon, riots and uprisings erupted and Spain was not able to maintain an efficient control over these areas, mainly because the Sahrawi tribes used guerrilla tactics and enjoyed a massive popular support. After the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations, Spain, as well as the other colonial countries such as France and Great Britain, found many difficulties in maintaining its colonies while surviving in a new international arena based on the ideals and principles dictated by the UN Charter, especially in Article 731 and Article 742. Since its founding, the United Nations promoted the development of forms of self-government in the territories administered by foreign countries enjoying a mandate3 on those territories. It has been estimated that, in 1945, almost one third of world population lived in those areas under trusteeship. 1 UN Charter, Article 73, Chapter 11: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement; c. to further international peace and security; d. to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply”. 2 UN Charter, Article 74, Chapter 11: “Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters”. 3 In this sense, the United Nations Charter foresaw, in Chapter XII, an International Trusteeship System monitored by the Trusteeship Council. The areas monitored were known as trust territories, which were either former Mandates of the League of Nations or colonies of the countries defeated during the Second World War. 7 As time went by, the process of decolonization continued and new states originated from trust territories. However, a new intervention by the UN was necessary in order to promote and to encourage this change. Therefore, the General Assembly adopted, on 14th December 1960, the Resolution 1514 known as the “Declaration on Decolonization” which contains several provisions in its paragraphs: “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation […] Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or color, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom”4.