Tifariti, September13,2005

H.E. Rt Bon Tony Blair MP Prime Minster of the United Kingdom, Current President of the Council of the European Union 10 Downing Streef London SWIA 2AA

Excellency,

I would like to addressto Jou this letter in Jour double capacity as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and current Presidentof the CoUncil of the EuropeanUnion to conveymy profound concern about the initiative taken by the European Commission to conclude a fisheryagreement with that involves the natura!resources ofWestem Sahara.

Western Sahar~ as the prestigious British diplomacy perfectly knows, is a colony that was abandonedby on 26 February 1976. A short time prior to that, on 14 November 1975, Spain signed together with Morocco and a tripartite agreement establishing an interim tripartite administration of the territory. After those three countries had signed that agreement, the UN General Assembly, in its resolution 3458 A, dated 10 December 1975, continued describing Spain (paragraphs 7 and 8 of the operative part of the resolution), as "administering power", which was a clear way of disapproving the content of Madrid agreement.Nonetheless, in its resolution 3458 B of the same date, and with a view to Teaching the goal pursued by the that was and is the holding of a referendum on self- determination ofthe colony, it stated m paragraph 4 that:

"[It J requeststhe interim administrationto take all necessarysteps to ensurethat all the Saharanpopulations originating in the Territory wiIl be able to exercisetheir inalienable right to self-detennination through free consultationsorganised with the assistanceof a representativeofthe Untied Nations appointedby $e Secretary-General."

After the withdrawal of Spainon 26 February1976, Morocco and Mauritania, inst~ad of holding the self-determinationreferendum, concluded, on 14 April 1976, a treaty of delimitation of the bordersby meansof which they annexedand partitioned WesternSahara. Such an annexationwas not recognisedby the General Assembl.ythat, in its first session following these acts, reiterated its commitmentto the se1f-determinationpf (resolution 31/33 of 1 December 1976). Moreover, after Mauritania abandonedthe part of WestemSahara that she had annexedand was subsequentlyinvaded by Morocco, the General Assembl.ydescribed the Moroccanpresence in the whol.eterritory as "occupation",both in the part thai it annexedinitially and the one that was annexedlater on (paragraphs5 and 6 of resolution34/37, dated21 November1979).

Describing the territory as "occupation" meansthat Morocco is not only deni,édthe "sovereignty",but anyother Lawful statusfoT its presencein the territory. That meansthat the Madrid agreementJacks any validity accordingto the GeneralAssembly. This conclusion has been clearly expressedby the Under-Secretary-GeneralfoT Legal Mfairs, the legal

J Counsel of the UIÛted Nations in bis verdict of 29 January 2002 (8/2002/161). In its paragraph6, the verdict statedthai:

"The Madrid Agreement did not transfer sovereigntyover the territory, nor did it conferupon any of the signatoriestie statusof an administeringPower-a statuswhich Spain alonecould not have unilaterally transferred"

Excellency,

The EuropeanEconomic Community then and the EuropeanUnion now have signed fishery agreementswith Morocco following Spain's admissionto this internationalorganisation.The content of those agreementswas confused.This can be gleaned fIom the last agreement signedby the EuropeanUmon with Morocco, Official Joumal, n° L 306 of 19/12/1995p. 0007 - 0043) signed before the legal Counselof the United Nations, Hans Corell, issuedbis verdict; on 29 January2002, regardingthe exploitation of the natura! resourcesof Western Sahara.Article 1.2 ofthis agreementdefines as "Morocco's fishing zone", "the waters under the sovereigntyor jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco." Now, what are the waters that are under the ')urisdiction" but not the "sovereignty"of Morocco? In casesuch waters were defined,it would be necessaryto clarify what is the Juridical title that gives that ')urisdiction" to Morocco. As far as Western Saharais concemed,Morocco lacks any juridical right thai grants her "jurisdiction" over W e$tern Sahara.We could deduce from this that Westem Saharawas left out of the agreement,although one may still wonder to what territory under ')urisdiction" but not "sovereignty"would that clauserefer.

SuspicionssUrrounding the clause referring to the waters under 'jurisdiction" of Morocco were confumed by the practice of the agreement,which in an exercise of bad faith was extendedto WesternSahara:

- The Commissionallowed that the clauses of the agreementthat referredto "Moroccan ports" were applied in connectionwith the ports of Western Sahara(Bojador, El Aai(m and Dakhla-Villa Cisneros);

- The Commission allowed that the c~ausesof the agreementthat referred to the "catches"were applied in connectionwith the capturesmade in watersofWestem Sahara;

- The Commission a1lowedthat the clauses of the agreementthat referred to the "landings" were applied in connection with the landings made in waters of the Westem Sahara; - The list of landing ports that was madeavailable by the Kingdom of Morocco afterthe cominginto effect ofthat agreementincluded ports ofWestem Sahara;

- The Commission allowed that the clauses of the agreement(p. e.g., relative to cephalopods,seiners south, black hake trawlers, pelagic trawlers) that referred to the geographicallirnits ofthe Atlantic ("south of 28°44'N') were usedto apply that agre,ementin the watersofWestem Saharathat begin in the parallel 27°40'N.

Excellency, 2 Upon knowing thai a new fishery agreementwas being negotiated,the Frente POLISARIO addresseda letter to the EuropeanCommissar, Mr. JoeBorg, on 18 May 2005 alerting him to the seriousnessof the initiative thai he was taking while negotiatingwith Morocco over the watersofWestem Sahara.In the letter, we statedto hirn the following:

"We firmly urge Jou to fully respectthe internationally recognisedfrontier between fue Kingdom of Morocco and Western Sahara,this is, the parall_el27° 40', as clearly establishedby the United Nations and the internationalpractice, and use the whole European politica! weight to protect the waters of Western Sáharaand their thousandkilometres-long coastfrom any agreementthat involves Europeanslips that may subsequentlybe detrimental to the critica! biomassof thesefisheries."

In the letter we recalled that the United Statesof America, in its free trade agreement with Morocco, included a clausethat expresslyexcluded Western Sahara fiom Morocco.This clausereflectedthe scrupulousrespect ofinternationallawthat the United Statesof America showedin its relationswith Morocco.

On 12 July 2005, the delegateofthe FrentePOLISARIO for Europereceived a responsethat was written on behalfofthe Commissarby the head ofcabinet of Mr. Joe Borg and where, after assuring that "the Commission is vigilant in putting into f~rce the principles of intemationallaw", he statedto the great surpriseofthe FrentePOLISARIO that:

"The possiblenegotiations of a FisheryPartnership Agreement With the Kingdom of Morocco would refer to the watersunder.Morocco's sovereignty or jurisdiction." . Excellency,

Dur concernis not groundless.The cruef negotiatorof the EuropeanCommission, the Spanish CésarDeben Alfonso, affinned that in the fishery agreementbetween the EU and Morocco "the waters of W estem Saharaare included, not becausethe Commission considersthat they are Moroccan, but because they are under Moroccan administration, according to the agreementbetween Spain and Morocco of 1975'~(Dispatch of the Spanishagency Europe Pressof 28 July 2005). To imply that Ma9rid tripartite accordsof 1975 are a valid agreement andthat they attributed the quality of administeringpower (and, therefore,the 'jurisdiction") of ,WesternSahara to Morocco can only be a result of a misjudgementor an evident error, given that the United Nations has been categoricalin its resolutionsand verdicts. To seekin an agreementbetween the European Union and Morocco to attribute to the latter the "administration~'of WesternSahara leaning on the agreementof 1975and describingWestern Saharaas a territory under Moroccan 'jurisdiction" is ap unlawful ~ttemptto give to Morocco what the United N~tions has not given her, and somethingthat the EuropeanUnion cannot andshould not give~

This initiative of the EuropeanCommis sion is evenmore seriousespecially at a time whenthe UN Secretary-Generalin bis latest report on the situation in Western Sahara(S/2005/204), dated19 April 2005, e~presslyrequested the partiesstating:

"In the meantime, both parties must refrain from inflammatory statementsor taking any action, including legal, politica! or military, which would have the effect of further complicating the searchfor a solution or causeunnecessary friction." (paragraph22 of the report). 3 There is no doubt that this fishery agreementcauses friction among the parties to the conflict and it constitutesa dangerousaction that can complicatethe searchfor the solutionto the conflict.

Excellency, fudeed,the Frente POLISARIO cannot claim the right to show the United Kingdom or the EuropeanUnion with whom they should concludetreaties. The Frente POLISARIO doesnot questionin any way thai treaties can be concludedwith the Kingdom of Morocco. But the FrentePOLISARIO, as the legitimaterepresentative of the Saharawipeople, bas the right and obligation to alert all international subjects thai, owing to misjudgement or error, seek to reachagreements with Morocco regardingterritories over which she bas no juridical right in confonnity with intematiopal law. The Frente POLISARIO does not request the European Union not to reach a fishery agreement.Now, to protect the right of the Saharawipeople and the right to self-detenninationthai all Stateshave the obligation to respect,we demandthai, for the sake of respect.for international law as an indication of responsibility, the European Union includes a reservationthai statesthai WesternSahara is excludedfrom this agreement. It would be a great contribution to peace and to the resolution of the conflict in confonnity with internationallegality.

Excellency,

Confidentthat a Prime Minister of a country worldwide renoWnedfoT its respectfor "the state of law" will not allow that international law is irresponsibly violated in relations with Morocco,receive the assurancesof my highestconsideration.

Tifariti,

Territoriesof WesternSahara Western under the contra! ofthe FrentePOLISARIO

PostScriptum Consideringthe relevancethe issuefor the United Nations and for the Nations which showed respectto the InternationalLaw in the caseof the WestemSahara we senda copy of this letter to the General Secretaryof the United Nations, the current Presidentof the SecurityCouncil andthe Head ofthe StateDepartment ofthe United Statesof America.

Mohamed Abdelaziz,

SecretaryGenera! of FrentePOLISARIO ,

President of the Saharawi Republic.

u.