Dear Mr. Edelman,

I read with interest your blog about Robert Mugabe -- especially in view of Edelman's client relationship with the Moroccan-American Center for Policy (MACP), which is a registered agent of the Moroccan government. I find Edelman's collusion with the Moroccan government through MACP highly disturbing. You mention that "Mugabe had been elected prime minister in 1980...." As I am sure you are aware the king of Morocco was never elected, and what passes for a democratic institution in Morocco, the parliament, is widely regarded by human rights groups as merely a rubber stamp body that can be dismissed at the whim of the king. Everything you say about Mugabe's disdain for democracy is equally applicable to Mohammed VI. So my first question is why doing business with MACP, a Moroccan government proxy group, is for Edelman a risk worth taking.

I don't know whether you have ever taken a look at your client's website (moroccanamericanpolicy.com). If you have you would know that MACP is a very thinly disguised propaganda organization for the Moroccan government. The bulk of the site is devoted to historically inaccurate information about Morocco's invasion and occupation of the Western Sahara. In case you are not familiar with the issue, Morocco invaded the territory in the mid-70s and despite repeated calls by the United Nations to hold a referendum on independence Rabat has refused to allow the inhabitants their right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice, furthermore, rejected Morocco's claims to sovereignty over the territory, and not one country today recognizes Morocco's sovereignty. MACP's site is a blatant attempt to justify Morocco's flaunting of international law through a campaign of misinformation. So my second question is how you can justify doing PR work for such an ethically challenged group.

My third question involves the specific campaign you ran for MACP: “Free Them Now! A Campaign to Win the Freedom of the World’s Longest Held Prisoners of War.” What's wrong with this award-winning campaign? Unfortunately, alot: 1) from 1975 to 1991 when a cease-fire was signed between Morocco and the Polisario Front, despite the longstanding desire of the Polisario to swap the Moroccans they held in a prisoner exchange, Hassan II, the current king's father, refused to negotiate their release. He was afraid that negotiation would legitimize the Polisario. 2) The 1991 cease-fire called for the release of prisoners on the holding of a referendum. Morocco flatly refused to uphold its part of the bargain by refusing to hold the referendum. 3) We are seeing more and more evidence that a major reason Morocco had no Saharan prisoners to exchange for the Moroccan prisoners held by the Polisario is that Morocco had "disappeared" or killed many of them. My point is that your campaign takes the side of and colludes with a brutal, autocratic regime with genocidal tendencies. Is this something you are proud of?

In addition, I have noticed that Edelman is a signatory to the United Nations Global Compact which prohibits collusion with countries in committing human rights abuses. Isn't that what you are doing in you campaign with MACP? And by the way, I have tried to find some mention on your website of your having signed the Global Compact, but have been unsuccessful. Could you point out for me where it is mentioned or are you hiding it for some reason.

If you want to talk about a "recurring nightmare," it is hard to find a situation much more nightmarish than Morocco's brutal illegal 30 plus-year occupation and plundering of the Western Sahara in flagrant violation of international law. How do you justify vilifying Mugabe while glorifying Morocco's equally vile deeds?

In conclusion I would like to remind you of your words from a couple years ago:

"Let me begin by recognizing that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I am sure that in the 53 year history of Edelman, there have been instances where we have drifted too close to the ethical line, whether in our choice of client or in our tactics on behalf of clients. With that caveat, I have a few thoughts that I hope will prompt further discussion in our industry.
First, we should not take on any client in the way that a lawyer can claim that every client deserves representation. We are not working in a court of law. We are working in the court of public opinion. We cannot say that the media is the ultimate screen on truth or the jury for the public. We are increasingly sending messages directly to end users of information, without the intermediate step of the media. What we disseminate often moves into public discourse with immediate effect and this information can move markets, affect consumer health or well-being. We should have a higher standard today on who we represent and what we say on their behalf."

Yes, you should have a higher standard today on who you represent.

Charles,

I am Peter Segall, a general manager in Edelman's Washington office, and oversee the relationship with the Kingdom of Morocco.

Thanks for your posting. Edelman takes great pride in our work on behalf of Morocco and has been awarded both national and international recognition for our efforts. The campaign that supported the release of the world’s longest-held POWs had a direct impact on the lives of these men and their families. Many of the POWs returned home to meet the children of their children for the first time. Regardless of political perspective, few would argue with granting freedom to 404 POWs who had been held in deplorable conditions in southern Algeria for an average of 23 years – 15 years after the UN brokered ceasefire called for their return.

In addition to being a strong and historic ally, Morocco is an example of a modern, moderate Islamic nation. As the Center for Strategic International Studies stated in its October 30 report, "In the past several years, Morocco has undertaken a number of profound steps forward toward political and economic transformation, setting a country at the forefront of reform efforts in the Middle East and North Africa."

Our work with Morocco has been transparent and forthright and we look forward to continuing our partnership with this unique and important country.

Dear Mr. Segall,

Thank you for your response.

I’m not as cheery about Morocco as you are. Yes Mohammed VI is better than his father, who according to Morocco’s own Reconciliation Commission was a monster of major proportions. Yes Mohammed VI is saying all the right things, but basically Morocco is still an autocratic, corrupt, and underdeveloped country that tortures its political opponents and jails its reporters. Its failed social, economic, and political policies have created a “modern” Morocco that is the biggest breeding ground for Islamist terrorism in the world, which is the world’s largest exporter of hashish, and whose education levels resemble those of least developed countries. And certainly in the occupied Western Sahara its brutality and totalitarian ways are well documented by such groups as Freedom House, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

But, actually, whether Morocco is a nice or not-so-nice place is not the main point of my comment. All countries have their warts and I have no problem with Edelman working for the Moroccan government per se -- for instance on say trade policy or tourism. Once you start working, however, for Morocco on the Western Sahara issue, you have crossed a line from public relations to propaganda because it is an issue with no ethical high ground for you or Rabat. As I mention in my previous comment, the UN and the world community are unanimous in refusing to accept Morocco’s sovereignty or annexation. You (Edelman), in cahoots with Rabat and the MACP, can spin it any way you like, but what you are doing is endorsing a brutal and illegal occupation and the denial of the Western Saharans right to self-determination.

Your cynical use of the sad and regrettable POW situation to demonize the Polisario Front is just that, cynical. Morocco, itself, has a long sad history of either ignoring the POWs or else using them to further their colonialist agenda. You are colluding in the perpetration and perpetuation of gross human rights abuses. You are making a mockery of the UN Global Compact of which you are a signatory.

Similarly, no matter how much you stand up for your client, MACP, it is hard to see this group as anything more than a propaganda factory for Morocco. The information they propagate on Morocco is at best a whitewashing of a very dubious record on human rights and development. Their information on the Western Sahara is simply false. Almost NOTHING they say about the Western Sahara stands up to academic or scholarly scrutiny. This misinformation is a deliberate and malicious attempt to prevent the Western Saharans from realizing their right to self-determination and to justify gross violations of international law on the part of Morocco. You should be ashamed to have these people as your clients.

By the way, since it was Mr. Edelman’s post on Zimbabwe that got me started here, I thought I’d check the recently released Freedom of the World 2007 report from Freedom House to see how the occupied Western Sahara stacked up against Zimbabwe in terms of political rights and civil liberties. As I had suspected, the Western Sahara and Zimbabwe have exactly the same score, only slightly above the “worst of the worst” such as Tibet, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan and in line with lovely places such as Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Syria, and Laos.

In summary, while you have indeed been “transparent and forthright” in your endorsement of Morocco’s illegal and reprehensible policies in the Western Sahara, it is not something of which I would be proud.

Sincerely,

Charlie Liebling