Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 3 October 2012:

With reference to the freedom of information papers FOI Reference No: 11/​4734, released on 28 May 2012:

(1) In regard to the recognition of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic on page 92, who does the Australian Government recognise as exercising state sovereignty in the area east and inland of the berm which divides Western Sahara.

(2) In regard to the recognition of the Polisario Front in the document entitled Western Sahara: Policy as 'an important representative body', and the statement that 'it would be hard to preclude the emergence of other Western Sahara voices as the situation evolves', has the Government been approached by any other emerging Western Saharan voices claiming to represent the interests of the Saharawi People.

(3) Given that, prior to 1975, the International Court of Justice advised that Morocco's claimed legal ties to Western Sahara were not sovereign ties to that territory, does Australia consider that Morocco's sovereign claims to Western Sahara are more legitimate now than when examined by the International Court of Justice.

(4) If the Government accepts the International Court of Justice decision, that Western Sahara was not terra nullius and that Morocco's legal ties were insufficient to create any sovereign interest in the territory, why does Government policy attach equal importance/​legitimacy to Morocco's continuing sovereign claim to rule Western Sahara by characterising the issue of sovereignty over Western Sahara as a conflict with two sides.

(5) Does the Government take the view that the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion was ambiguous in regard to Morocco's claims to sovereignty over Western Sahara.

(6) Does Morocco's 36 year occupation of Western Sahara create greater sovereign interest in the natural resources of Western Sahara, allowing it to legally exploit those resources in partnership with Australian companies, despite having no legally recognised sovereign ties to the territory prior to invasion and annexation.

(7) In regard to the United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations (UNLOC) (pp. 171-172, 303, 308-309):

(a) is the Government aware that Standards Australia has considered and rejected the UNLOC code as an Australian standard and advises that Australians needing to state country locations in official documents must rely on their own enquiries and legal advice as to the actual geographical location of any particular city or the validity of sovereign claims to resources;

(b) does the Government's official endorsement of the misleading UNLOC code contradict its policy not to advise importers in regard to the legal implications of importing Western Saharan goods; and

(c) can a list be provided of the number and type of goods imported from the occupied territory of Western Sahara that have declared Western Sahara as the country of origin in importation documents.

(8) In regard to fishing and information referred to at http://www.austrade.gov.au/​Morocco-profile/​default.aspx, and given that trade figures provided for 2007 state 'prepared seafood' was imported from Morocco, are these products still being imported and do they come from Western Saharan waters.

(9) In regard to the letter from the Government of Morocco dated 13 February 2008, requesting support for its autonomy plan, what was the Australian Government's response.

(10) Does the Government support the Moroccan autonomy plan as the preferred solution to the conflict over self-determination in Western Sahara.

(11) Will the Government revise its commercial and military regulations and guidelines so as to make any trade with Morocco conditional upon restoring human rights.