Morocco replies

On May 5, 1997, The Jakarta Post published the right to reply of the Algerian Embassy contesting the commentary on the photo published by your daily on April 27, 1997, illustrating the visit of James Baker to the region of North West Africa. Although your comment was factual and impartial, the Algerian ambassador allowed himself to involve explicitly Morocco in his clarification inserting some tendentious allegations which have nothing to do with the commentary contested.

Since Morocco was mentioned and some malevolent insinuations were expressed against my country, I would like to exercise my right of response to stress what follows:

* Though it did not appreciate the publication of the above mentioned commentary, the Moroccan Embassy decided not to react in order to avoid to transpose a conflict opposing two neighbors in the columns of the Indonesian press.

* The conflict in the Sahara lasts more than 20 years because Algeria created, financed and equipped with arms a secessionist movement to oppose the completion of the territorial integrity of Morocco, whose judicial links with the Saharan territories were recognized by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Peculiarly, this movement did not exist during the Spanish occupation.

* In its impulsive gratuitous propaganda, the Algerian right of response speaks of gesture of good will. However, it forgets to underline two important specifications:

- the freed people were unfortunately detained for many years in the Algerian territory, a neighbor, member of the Maghreb Arab Union.

- the gesture of good will could have been highly appreciated if it had concerned the thousands of sequestered people in what is called "refugee camps of Tindouf". The violations of elementary human rights in these camps have been reported to the UN Human Rights Committee by dozens of people who risked their lives to escape these camps.

* The affirmation supported in the third point of the right of response according to which "Algeria and Mauritania are in conformity with the settlement plan" implies that Morocco is not. This is a fallacy because it is Morocco which always calls for integral implementation of the settlement plan initiated by the United Nations. The maneuvers of the "Polisario" and its protector -- which acts not as observer, but as a concerned party -- bring to a dead lock in the Settlement Plan for more than one year because they fear the outcome of the referendum.

* The insidious excesses of the Algerian clarification remind us of the days, we believed gone to no return, when Algerian embassies were the official horn of propaganda for the "polisario". Obviously, the world has changed while Algeria has not. Yet, other subjects which heckle the Algerian Embassy are not lacking. They might have surely interested the readers of The Jakarta Post.

OMAR HILALE

Ambassador of Morocco

Jakarta