Strictly Personal

Why the UNSG Report is a Major Diplomatic Setback for Algeria by Samir Bennis

Published

2 years ago

October 7, 2022

UN Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres’ latest report on the situation in Western Sahara may not readily come across as a knockout blow to Polisario’s statehood aspirations in Western Sahara, owing to its usual diplomatic knack for not overtly offending any of the conflicting parties and its few evocations of a “self-determination referendum” every time it quoted the demands of the Polisario leadership.

When looked at the document more closely, however, both the language adopted, and the recommendations laid out in this annual report on the region constitute a major setback for the Algerian-backed Polisario Front.

Although the document does not explicitly support Morocco’s 2007 autonomy initiative, many of its points echoed the avenues the Moroccan plan previously laid out as the best way out of the decades-long political and diplomatic dispute in the Western Sahara region.

A Rebuke to Algeria

In previous reports Guterres shielded himself from quasi-openly singling out Algeria for its primary responsibility in the creation and the prolongation of the conflict and the stalemate of the political process. The new report however, has introduced language suggesting that the UN chief is no longer mincing his words about Algeria’s status as a full-fledged party to the dispute.

The first noteworthy change signifying that winds are blowing against Algeria is the use of the term “all concerned” as opposed to the “parties” which was the term usually used in previous reports. The use of the term “parties” in previous reports was open to different interpretations and was used by Algeria to shirk its responsibility and continue claiming that it is only an observer to the conflict.

The use of the new language, however, carries a strong political connotation in the sense that the UN admits that all parties, including Algeria and Mauritania, are concerned with the dispute and should participate fully in the political process.

Additionally, there is the use of the phrase “good faith” when referring to the political process. While previous reports from the UNSG stressed that the parties show political will to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, the new report emphasizes that achieving that goal requires “good faith” from all concerned parties. This is a tacit, yet clear, reference to the bad faith that Algeria and the Polisario have shown since the beginning of the political process in 2007.

The report thoroughly shatters Algeria’s claims in paragraph 92, where the UN chief calls on the country, and the separatist front it supports, to let go of their obstructive approach to the dispute.

“To that end, I urge all concerned to approach the facilitation of the process by my Personal Envoy with an open mind, and to desist from preconditions for the political process,” the UN chief says. “In guiding present and future approaches, due consideration should be given to the precedents set by my previous Personal Envoys in the framework of existing Security Council resolutions.”

The paragraph stands out as a clear message to Algeria and Polisario urging them to do away with their obstruction stubbornness and to desist from clinging to an obsolete approach that was once contemplated by the United Nations.

To put it bluntly, Guterres has sent a subtly clear message that a referendum of self-determination with the option of independence is off the table and that they can no longer claim that the Security Council resolution 690 of 1991 should be the basis on which the parties should build their negotiations.

The UNSG calls for giving consideration to the changes and precedents set by his previous personal envoys, which is reflected in the language used by the Security Council since the outset of the political process in 2007. Guterres implies that the resolutions adopted during the tenure of his previous Personal Envoys are the only guiding principle for achieving a mutually acceptable political solution.

The new language introduced by Guterres conveys a direct rebuke to Algeria who, following the adoption of Resolution 2602 in October 2021, published a communique in which it rejected the approach taken by the Security Council.

Algeria called on the Personal Envoy to “strictly inscribe” his mandate in the implementation of Resolution 690 on the settlement plan accepted by the “two parties to the conflict.” The Algerian position clearly deviated from the parameters of the political process, which helped clarify that the provisions of Resolution 690 were no longer the best guiding principle for the parties to settle the dispute.

The self-determination referendum off the table

The introduction of this new language clearly indicates that the UN has once and for all closed the chapter for a referendum on self-determination. Some observers who still read the conflict through the lenses of the 80s and 90s might argue that there is nothing in the text suggesting that the UN is repudiating that option.

The first indicator against that claim comes at the end of paragraph 91, where Guterres cites the resolutions that the political solution must be built on, notably mentioning the ones adopted since 2018. “Strong political will is required to find a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution that will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in accordance with resolutions 2440(2018), 2468 (2019), 2494 (2019), 2548 (2020) and 2602 (2021),” Guterres says in the report.

This paragraph confirms that the resolutions adopted since 2018 are the only legal and political framework within which the parties should strive to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution. More importantly, what gives credence to the new approach is that Resolution 690, which established MINURSO, and all the other resolutions that followed until 1997 were adopted in the absence of a Personal Envoy tasked with bridging the gap between the parties.

The first Personal Envoy was James Baker in 1997, who during his first three years strove to get Morocco and the Polisario to agree on criteria that would pave the way for the holding of a self-determination referendum. Because of the parties’ different interpretation of the settlement provisions and their disagreement on voter eligibility however, the UN had to come to terms with the idea that holding the referendum was an unattainable goal.

In February 2000, the late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasized the lack of means to enforce the result of a referendum, saying “it was time to consider” other ways. Consequently, he asked Baker to “explore ways and means to achieve an early, lasting and agreed resolution.”

Ever since, the dispute has undergone a few shifts and changes and the idea of an autonomy plan as a way to resolve the conflict was floated by Baker for the first time in 2001. While Morocco accepted that proposal, Algeria and Polisario refused it. In 2003, he submitted another proposal, which included an autonomy plan, but also contemplated the holding of a referendum after five years within its implementation. Morocco refused the 2003 proposal while Algeria and the Polisario accepted it.

Following Baker’s resignation in 2004, the Security Council asked the parties to submit proposals to reach a political solution. In the years that followed, the Security Council has moved to regard an agreed and mutually acceptable solution as the only way forward.

Shifts towards a negotiated settlement

This dynamic in favor of a negotiated settlement and the abandonment of a self-determination referendum gained a new momentum when Morocco submitted its autonomy proposal in 2007. The first step that the Security Council took in this direction was resolution 1754 in April 2007, whose adoption was a watershed moment in the history of the conflict’s peace process.

For the first time, the Security Council, called on parties to strive towards finding a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution to the conflict. While it maintained that such a solution would “provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara,” it eliminated the term “referendum.”

This was the first sign that the Security Council regarded a referendum leading to the establishment of an independent state in southern Morocco as an unviable solution that the kingdom could never accept.

Another sign pointing to the abandonment of that option was the fact that Resolution 1754 took note of the Moroccan autonomy plan, stating that it welcomed “serious and credible Moroccan efforts to move the process forward towards resolution.” What was especially significant about that resolution’s wording, pointing to a shift in the Security Council’s approach to the conflict, was the fact that while it “welcomed” Morocco’s efforts it only “took note of” Polisario’s counterproposal.

Resolution 1754 echoes the findings of then Personal Envoy Peter Van Walsum. In an interview to El Pais in 2008, he said that the establishment of an independent state in southern Morocco was not realistic. Walsum doubled down in an op-ed published in the same newspaper where he explained that there was widespread consensus within the Security Council about the need to push for a mutually acceptable political solution.

The newly found momentum in favor of a political peace process based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal was dampened following the election of Ban Ki-Moon as Secretary General in 2007 and his subsequent appointment of Christopher Ross as his Personal Envoy. Ross seemed less willing than his predecessor to push Algeria and the Polisario to embrace the new direction taken by the Security Council with the adoption of Resolution 1754.

This enabled both of them to stall the political process by taking the focus away from the political process and focusing instead on human rights in the territory. Despite these attempts, and though no progress was achieved between 2009 and 2017, the Security Council maintained the same emphasis on the need for the parties to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution, with the option of a self-determination referendum being completely off the table.

Renewed momentum under Guterres

The election of Guterres in 2018 and the appointment of Horst Kohler as his Personal Envoy breathed new life into the process and refocused the discussion on the need for a mutually acceptable political solution.

Since the adoption of Resolution 2440 in 2018, the Security Council put more emphasis on the need for all parties, including Algeria and Mauritania in addition to Morocco and the Polisario, to be guided by a spirit of compromise and realism, while stressing the need to “achieve a realistic, practicable and enduring political solution based on compromise.” The resolutions also regard Algeria as a main party to the conflict, stressing the pivotal role that it should play in the political process.

Against this backdrop, it becomes clear that the new language in the UNSG report is a stark rebuke to Algeria and the Polisario. It also renews the call for them to forgo the pipe dream of establishing an independent state in southern Morocco and to approach the political process with good faith.

Samir Bennis is the co-founder of Morocco World News. You can follow him on Twitter @SamirBennis.

Related Topics:Algeria opinion strictly personal

Click to comment

Strictly Personal

Let’s merge EAC and Igad, By Nuur Mohamud Sheekh

Published

3 weeks ago

November 27, 2024

Ifeoluwa Dada

In an era of political and economic uncertainty, global crises and diminishing donor contributions, Africa’s regional economic communities (RECs) must reimagine their approach to regional integration.

The East African Community (EAC) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (Igad), two critical RECs in East Africa and the Horn of Africa have an unprecedented opportunity to join forces, leveraging their respective strengths to drive sustainable peace and development and advance regional economic integration and promote the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Already, four of the eight Igad member states are also members of the EAC and, with Ethiopia and Sudan showing interest, the new unified bloc would be formidable.

Igad’s strength lies in regional peacemaking, preventive diplomacy, security, and resilience, especially in a region plagued by protracted conflicts, climate challenges, and humanitarian crises. The EAC, on the other hand, has made remarkable strides in economic integration, exemplified by its Customs Union, Common Market, and ongoing efforts toward a monetary union. Combining these comparative advantages would create a formidable entity capable of addressing complex challenges holistically.

Imagine a REC that pairs Igad’s conflict resolution strengths with the EAC’s diplomatic standing and robust economic framework. Member states of both are also contributing troops to peacekeeping missions. Such a fusion would streamline efforts to create a peaceful and economically prosperous region, addressing the root causes of instability while simultaneously promoting trade investment and regional cooperation.

These strengths will be harnessed to deal with inter-state tensions that we are currently witnessing, including between Ethiopia and Somalia over the Somaliland MoU, strained relations between Djibouti and Eritrea, and the continually deteriorating relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

The global economy experienced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, compounded by the Ukraine war and competing global crises, has strained donor countries and reduced financial contributions to multilateral organisations and African RECs. Member states, many of which are grappling with fiscal constraints, are increasingly unable to fill this gap, failing to make timely contributions, which is in turn affecting key mandate areas of Igad and EAC, and staff morale.

A merger between Igad and EAC would alleviate this financial pressure by eliminating redundancies. Shared administrative systems, integrated programmes, and a unified leadership structure would optimise resources, enabling the new REC to achieve more with less. Staff rationalisation, while sensitive, is a necessary step to ensure that limited funds are channelled toward impactful initiatives rather than duplicative overheads.

The African Union (AU) envisions a fully integrated Africa, with RECs serving as the building blocks of the AfCFTA. A unified EAC-Igad entity would become a powerhouse for regional integration, unlocking economies of scale and harmonising policies across a wider geographical and economic landscape.

This merger would enhance the implementation of the AfCFTA by creating a larger, more cohesive market that attracts investment, fosters innovation, and increases competitiveness. By aligning trade policies, infrastructure projects, and regulatory frameworks, the new REC could serve as a model for others, accelerating continental integration.

The road to integration is not without obstacles. Political will, divergent institutional mandates, and the complexity of harmonising systems pose significant challenges. However, these hurdles are surmountable through inclusive dialogue, strong leadership, and a phased approach to integration.

Member states must prioritise the long-term benefits of unity over short-term political considerations. Civil society, the private sector, the youth, and international partners also have a critical role to play in advocating for and supporting this transformative initiative.

The time for EAC and Igad to join forces is now. By merging into a single REC, they would pool their strengths, optimise resources, and position themselves as a driving force for regional and continental integration. In doing so, they would not only secure a prosperous future for their citizens and member states but also advance the broader vision of an integrated and thriving Africa.

As the world grapples with crises, Africa must look inward, embracing the power of unity to achieve its potential. A combined Igad-EAC is the bold step forward that the continent needs.

Nuur Mohamud Sheekh, a diplomatic and geopolitical analyst based in London, is a former spokesperson of the Igad Executive Secretary. X: @NuursViews

Strictly Personal

Budgets, budgeting and budget financing, By Sheriffdeen A. Tella, Ph.D.

Published

4 weeks ago

November 20, 2024

Ifeoluwa Dada

The budget season is here again. It is an institutional and desirable annual ritual. Revenue collection and spending at the federal, State and local government levels must be authorised and guided by law. That is what budget is all about. A document containing the estimates of projected revenues from identified sources and the proposed expenditure for different sectors in the appropriate level of government. The last two weeks have seen the delivery of budget drafts to various Houses of Assembly and the promise that the federal government would present its draft budget to the National Assembly.

Do people still look forward to the budget presentation and the contents therein? I am not sure. Citizens have realised that these days, governments often spend money without reference to the approved budget. A governor can just wake up and direct that a police station be built in a location. With no allocation in the budget, the station will be completed in three months. The President can direct from his bathroom that 72 trailers of maize be distributed to the 36 states as palliatives. No budget provision, and no discussion by relevant committee or group.

We still operate with the military mentality. We operated too long under the military and of the five Presidents we have in this democracy, two of them were retired military Heads of State. Between them, they spent 16 years of 25 years of democratic governance. Hopefully, we are done with them physically but not mentally. Most present governors grew up largely under military regimes with the command system. That is why some see themselves as emperor and act accordingly. Their direct staff and commissioners are “Yes” men and women. There is need for disorientation.

The importance of budget in the art of governance cannot be overemphasized. It is one of the major functions of the legislature because without the consideration and authorisation of spending of funds by this arm of government, the executive has no power to start spending money. There is what we refer to as a budget cycle or stages. The budget drafting stage within the purview of the executive arm is the first stage and, followed by the authorisation stage where the legislature discusses, evaluates and tinkers with the draft for approval before presenting it to the President for his signature.

Thereafter, the budget enters the execution phase or cycle where programmes and projects are executed by the executive arm with the legislature carrying out oversight functions. Finally, we enter the auditing phase when the federal and State Auditors verify and report on the execution of the budgets. The report would normally be submitted to the Legislature. Many Auditor Generals have fallen victim at this stage for daring to query the executives on some aspects of the execution in their reports.

A new budget should contain the objectives and achievements of the preceding budget in the introduction as the foundation for the budget. More appropriately, a current budget derives its strength from a medium-term framework which also derives its strength from a national Development Plan or a State Plan. An approved National Plan does not exist currently, although the Plan launched by the Muhammadu Buhari administration is in the cooler. President Tinubu, who is acclaimed to be the architect of the Lagos State long-term Plan seems curiously, disillusioned with a national Plan.

Some States like Oyo and Kaduna, have long-term Plans that serve as the source of their annual budgets. Economists and policymakers see development plans as instruments of salvation for developing countries. Mike Obadan, the former Director General of the moribund Nigeria Centre for Economic and Management Administration, opined that a Plan in a developing country serves as an instrument to eradicate poverty, achieve high rates of economic growth and promote economic and social development.

The Nigerian development plans were on course until the adoption of the World Bank/IMF-inspired Structural Adjustment Programme in 1986 when the country and others that adopted the programme were forced to abandon such plan for short-term stabilisation policies in the name of a rolling plan. We have been rolling in the mud since that time. One is not surprised that the Tinubu administration is not looking at the Buhari Development Plan since the government is World Bank/IMF compliant. It was in the news last week that our President is an American asset and by extension, Nigeria’s policies must be defined by America which controls the Bretton Woods institutions.

A national Plan allows the citizens to monitor quantitatively, the projects and programmes being executed or to be executed by the government through the budgeting procedure. It is part of the definitive measures of transparency and accountability which most Nigerian governments do not cherish. So, you cannot pin your government down to anything.

Budgets these days hardly contain budget performance in terms of revenue, expenditure and other achievements like several schools, hospitals, small-scale enterprises, etc, that the government got involved in successfully and partially. These are the foundation for a new budget like items brought forward in accounting documents. The new budget should state the new reforms or transformations that would be taking place. Reforms like shifting from dominance of recurrent expenditure to capital expenditure; moving from the provision of basic needs programmes to industrialisation, and from reliance on foreign loans to dependence on domestic fund mobilisation for executing the budget.

That brings us to the issue of budget deficit and borrowing. When an economy is in recession, expansionary fiscal policy is recommended. That is, the government will need to spend more than it receives to pump prime the economy. If this is taken, Nigeria has always had a deficit budget, implying that we are always in economic recession. The fact is that even when we had a surplus in our balance of payment that made it possible to pay off our debts, we still had a deficit budget. We are so used to borrowing at the national level that stopping it will look like the collapse of the Nigerian state. The States have also followed the trend. Ordinarily, since States are largely dependent on the federal government for funds, they should promote balanced budget.

The States are like a schoolboy who depends on his parents for school fees and feeding allowance but goes about borrowing from classmates. Definitely, it is the parents that will surely pay the debt. The debt forgiveness mentality plays a major role in the process. Having enjoyed debt forgiveness in the past, the federal government is always in the credit market and does not caution the State governments in participating in the market. Our Presidents don’t feel ashamed when they are begging for debt forgiveness in international forum where issues on global development are being discussed. Not less than twice I have watched the countenance of some Presidents, even from Africa, while they looked at our president with disdain when issues of debt forgiveness for African countries was raised.

In most cases, the government, both at the federal and state cannot show the product of loans, except those lent by institutions like the World Bank or African Development Bank for specific projects which are monitored by the lending institutions. In other cases, the loans are stolen and transferred abroad while we are paying the loans. In some other cases, the loans are diverted to projects other than what the proposal stated. There was a case of loans obtained based on establishing an international car park in the border of the State but diverted to finance the election of a politician in the State. The politician eventually lost the election but the citizens of the State have to be taxed to pay the loan. Somebody as “Nigeria we hail thee”.

Transformation in budgeting should commence subsequently at the State and federal level. Now that local government will enjoy some financial autonomy and therefore budgeting process, they should be legally barred from contracting foreign loans. They have no business participating in the market. They should promote balanced budget where proposed expenditures must equal the expected revenues from federal and internal sources. The State government that cannot mobilise, from records, up to 40 percent of its total budget from IGR should not be supported to contract foreign loans. The States should engage in a balanced budget. The federal government budget should shift away from huge allocations to recurrent expenditure towards capital expenditure for capital formation and within the context of a welfarist state.

Sheriffdeen A. Tella, Ph.D.