Faced with the world crisis, the Security Council leaves the Sahara conflict aside
The Security Council of the United Nations Organisation (UN) discussed last Thursday a report from Secretary General Antonio Guterres on the process of negotiations under way to resolve definitively the conflict in Western Sahara. The general opinion of the leaders of the member countries of the Council is that it is a secondary, marginal conflict and that it should be resolved on the basis of quadripartite negotiations between the parties, the three governments concerned, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania, and the Polisario Front movement, which represents the refugee population in the Algerian camps of Tindouf. Two meetings have already been held in 2018 and 2019, and Antonio Guterres wants a new one this year.
On the other hand, on Thursday, Guterres called the members of the Council by videoconference to address the global crisis generated by the coronavirus. This is actually the main concern of all countries, and the key strategic knot facing the UN and its highest executive body, the Security Council.
The Polisario Front, which was not present at the Council's debate but made its position known through South Africa, a non-permanent member of the 15, claims that the right to self-determination is inalienable and that it will not give it up.
Behind the repetitive and inane speeches of two of the four parties to be negotiated, Algeria and the Polisario, there is a bitter reality. The world pandemic is making the Saharawi refugee population in Tindouf understand that they are trapped in a mousetrap. The lack of basic sanitary means, the hunger and the malnutrition provoke in them the panic that an almost inevitable extension of the VIDOC-19 contagion in the refugee camps ends up in a hecatomb and inexorably decimates its inhabitants. There is no way out of Tindouf, the borders are closed, and Algeria does not have the capacity to absorb the thousands of infected people who will need hospital care and intensive care.
In these last weeks of the pandemic's spread, the Polisario leaders have made no mention of its consequences. In the event of serious symptoms, they could be treated by Algerian hospitals, and even by Cuba if they chartered a medical plane from Tindouf to Havana, but the population of the camps would have to face the deadly disease with their own means. As for the 'officials', students, businessmen and professionals in the Polisario's environment, which in the whole world amount to several thousands distributed among the countries and their delegations, the crisis has caught up with them in the countries of residence, where they will be able to be treated like the local populations.
The Saharawis living in the territory will also be affected by the pandemic, but will have the same attention as the rest of the citizens in the Moroccan health system, which is preparing to face the avalanche of the VIDOC-19.
The Polisario is raising a series of rights that have been part of the baggage of claims in the world since the end of the Second World War, which led to the decolonization of Africa. But before these 'rights' lies the very survival of the populations. The main right of any Sahrawi, European, African or world citizen is to live, and not to have a flag, a language or a particular belief. And at this moment, it is this right that is in danger. Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania and the Polisario should conclude and sign a great agreement so that, once the health emergency is over, a territorial, autonomous, integrating and respectful solution can be designed for the idiosyncrasies of each of the populations that make up the North African mosaic. The agreement can be reached now, and its implementation will become a reality once the borders are open.