Western Sahara’s "Wall of Shame"

How the longest active military wall continues to divide the Saharawi people
By Timothy Kustusch — Special to GlobalPost
------------------

ARABUNI CAMP, Algeria — It is almost half the size of the Great Wall of China, four times the length of the wall in the West Bank, and 16 times longer than the Berlin Wall ever was, but few have heard of the 1,600-mile-long Moroccan military wall that divides the Western Sahara.

On the western side of the wall, Morocco exerts de facto control over what the Saharawis call the “Occupied Territories.” On the eastern side, the Saharawis’ Polisario Front governs and maintains its military forces.

The Saharawis refer to the Moroccan barrier as the “Wall of Shame,” not only because it divides the 160,000 Saharawi refugees in Algeria from their families and friends in the Moroccan held territory, but also because it threatens the lives and livelihoods of the thousands of Saharawi nomads that still wander through the Western Sahara’s deserts.

Construction of the wall began in 1980. Since 1975, the Saharawi People’s Liberation Army (ALPS) had been battling the Moroccan and Mauritanian armies (until the latter’s defeat in 1979), using lightning-strike guerrilla tactics that exhausted their adversaries’ traditional armies.

In the face of ALPS victories, the Royal Moroccan Army (RMA) began work on a long barrier of simple sand embankments meant to slow down the fast-moving Saharawi soldiers. Between 1980 and 1987, five heavily fortified walls were added to the east and south, completely cutting off the Saharawi soldiers and refugees from their home cities, such as Layoune and Smara.

A desert party near Timbuktu Today, despite a ceasefire signed in 1991, both parties actively patrol their respective sides of the wall. Along the western side, Morocco maintains about 160,000 troops, reinforced by heavy military installations every seven miles, which include radar, artillery and tanks.

The Polisario refuses to cite the number of units that patrol its seven military regions on the eastern side of the wall, claiming that if war is resumed, all Saharawis will come to the front lines to fight.

From afar, the Moroccan military wall appears to be a sandy hill with a few helmeted soldiers peering over the top. A more accurate depiction, however, is given by Hamdi, a 24-year-old Saharawi from Layoune who crossed the wall on foot in 2007 to escape imprisonment by Moroccan police for his pro-independence activities:

"First, I cross a small ditch, about one meter deep and one meter across. Then I arrive at a low wall of rocks. These rocks are loose, so when you try cross the berm, they fall and make noise, so the soldiers come. Then there is other, much bigger trench. When I climb out of that, I cross last wall of sand and rock, which is more than two meters up. I pull myself over, jump down to other side, jump over big barbed wire fence, and run across live field of mines in black of night. I am very afraid of step on mines, but I think, ‘If I make it this far, I have to trust Allah that I make it through the field of mines alive.’”

Hamdi is one of thousands of Saharawis who have crossed the wall to flee the Moroccan police and escape to the refugee camps outside of Tindouf, Algeria. Most cross the wall at night with a handful of belongings, a bag of dates, and a few liters of water. After traversing the barrier, they often must spend days walking through the desert before reaching a group of nomads or a Saharawi military company that will take them to the camps.

Of course, that is only if they survive the nighttime trek across the field of anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines. Though the exact number of mines on the eastern side of the wall is unknown, estimates range from one million to over 10 million, and the U.N. consistently ranks the Western Sahara as one of the top 10 territories most contaminated by landmines and unexploded ordinances (UXOs).

In April, the true threat of these mines became very real for more than 1,200 international visitors who were participating in an annual protest march in front of the berm. During the protest, a group of young Saharawis charged towards the Moroccan soldiers on the other side of the wall, hurling both rocks and insults. A 19-year-old charged forward, and although others tried to restrain the youth, he stepped on a mine and blew off his right foot, injuring four others.

A desert party near Timbuktu “You have all seen in a very tangible way how easily Morocco’s wall can convert human life into death,” said Abdelkadar Taleb Omar, a senior member of the Polisario, the following day.

Muhamed Abdelaziz, the secretary general of the Polisario Front, expressed his desire for U.S. President Barack Obama to press Morocco to dismantle its wall, calling it a “grave violation of human rights.”

For the Saharawi people, however, the Western Saharan conflict is shrouded by another wall — what they refer to as “a media blockade.” The Saharawis insist that their decades-old conflict is painfully underreported in the international media. They say that until this media wall is torn down and the international community becomes interested in the Western Saharan conflict, it is likely that Morocco’s 1,600-mile berm will remain standing.

---------------------

Source: http://mobile.globalpost.com/dispatch/africa/090808/western-saharas-wall-shame

Obama’s new position on the Western Saharan conflict causes panic for Moroccans

In a letter published on July 3, 2009, by the Maghreb Arab Press Agency (the official media source of the Kingdom of Morocco), President Barack Obama wrote to King Mohamed VI on a variety of issues, including the 35-year-old conflict between Morocco and the Saharawis’ Polisario Front over the political future of the Western Sahara. The President’s statements – which made no mention of the previous Administration’s unofficial policy of support for the Kingdom’s 2007 autonomy proposal – have already caused panic and discord among the supporters of the Moroccan position.

While the President’s letter did not specifically endorse the Saharawis’ right to self-determination – the only legal solution to the conflict according to the United Nations’ Charter and countless resolutions, as well as a 1974 ruling by the International Court of Justice – his endorsement of UN-led negotiations as “the appropriate forum to achieve a mutually-agreed solution” marked a notable divergence from the policies of the previous Administration.

During former-President Bush’s tenure, while the Administration did not officially endorse either of the two sides to the conflict, many statements were made by U.S. State Department officials in favor of the Kingdom’s proposal on autonomy as the only realistic solution to the conflict.

Upon the publishing of President Obama’s letter, the Moroccan American community immediately interpreted his words as “a reversal of the American Administration’s position on the Western Sahara conflict”, according to an article posted on the Moroccan American Community board’s Web site.

The opinion piece, which was written by Hassan Masiky (a Moroccan who has lived and worked in Washington, DC, since 1991) accused a variety of unspecified “Moroccan American ‘organizations’” of overreacting to the President’s comments and showing their political incompetence in Washington.

“The recent flap over a fake ‘press article’ indicating a reversal of the American Administration’s position on the Western Sahara conflict has highlighted several deficiencies and shortcoming [sic] of some ‘leaders’ of the Moroccan American community in the United States,” argued Masiky. “This shows a lack of a political maturity.”

Acknowledging recent missteps by the Moroccan lobby in the U.S., Masiky did not withhold his criticism.

“Some newly minted Moroccan American ‘organizations’ in the U.S. are still new to the field of political engagement and popular lobbying and need a lot more experience before reaching adulthood and attaining Washington political ripeness,” he bemoaned.

Masiky went on to say that “the Moroccan [sic] must convince the American Administration to frame the Conflict [sic] as a Moroccan Algerian dispute first and foremost, linking efforts to secure the Western and Algerian Sahara to a resolution of the outstanding issues between Rabat and Algiers.”

This statement was made despite the fact that the UN, the Saharawis, and the Kingdom of Morocco have officially recognized that the only two parties to the conflict are Morocco and the Polisario Front. Such has been the basis for the past 18 years of failed efforts to hold a referendum for the Saharawis and the past three years of UN-led negotiations.

What is to be made of these comments made by advocates of Morocco’s position in the Western Saharan conflict? First, it is clear that there is still uncertainty about the new U.S. Administration’s position on the issue. The confusion and overreaction by the Moroccan advocates highlight this fact.

Second, the Moroccan supporters’ willingness to consistently reframe the conflict has been made painfully apparent. While the Polisario Front has argued one consistent theme since 1975 – a free and fair referendum for the self-determination of the Saharawi people, as endorsed by the UN Security Council and General Assembly – Morocco has reached into its bottomless arsenal of arguments to try to win over the support of the powerful Western nations.


In the earliest years of the conflict, Morocco invaded and then defended the majority of the Western Sahara, claiming that historical religious ties inherently linked the territory to the monarchy (a claim rejected by the ICJ’s 1974 ruling). Over the next few decades, the Polisario Front was accused of being an organization of communists, socialists, or terrorists, depending on the international concerns of the United States at the time.


Now, as a number of policy-makers and think tanks in Washington have expressed interest in furthering regional cooperation in the North African Maghreb region (most notably, a report entitled “Why the Maghreb Matters” published by The Potomac Institute and bearing former-Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s name – supporters of the Moroccan position are trying to reframe the conflict as a dispute between Algeria and Morocco, the two powerhouses in the region.


While it is not the first time that the Moroccans have made this argument, the words of Masiky (one of the louder Moroccan voices in Washington on the Western Saharan issue) suggest that perhaps this misrepresentation of the conflict’s actors should be the focus of the Kingdom’s lobbying efforts in the U.S.


Obama’s new position should not be reason for the Saharawis to celebrate – the relatively new U.S. President made no specific mention of their UN-backed right to self-determination. Nonetheless, the fact that he did endorse the UN-led negotiations and a mutually acceptable solution may signify that Rabat can no longer count on the United States’ support for its attempt to cling to the Western Sahara despite UN declarations against the status quo.


As he has done with many of his statements to Israel, President Obama has again shown that he is willing to maintain the U.S.’s friendships and alliances without blindly allowing those friends and allies to violate international law and human rights norms.


President Obama arrived at the White House on a promise of rational decision-making and negotiation, rather than succumbing to the will of interest groups and powerful lobbyists in Washington. For the past three decades, Morocco’s far superior lobbying capabilities and funds have overshadowed the Saharawis’ attempts to gain support from the U.S. Congress and Presidency. If the new President is no longer impacted by those lobbying efforts, the Moroccan American supporters of their Kingdom’s position in the Western Saharan conflict may be right to panic.


The article by Hassan Masiky can be found at www.moroccoboard.com/viewpoint/68-hassan-massiki/582-flap-over-qnewsq-article-a-political-immaturity.

The re-Declaration of Independence

April 22, 2009

An open letter to Congress from an American in the Saharawi Refugee Camps

Honorable Members of Congress:

My name is Tim Kustusch, and I am from Clarendon Hills, IL. I am currently writing to you from the Saharawi refugee camps in Algeria, where I have been working for the past month and a half. I am writing to you on a matter of utmost importance to me, but even more so to more than 150,000 Saharawis living here in the camps and the hundreds of thousands still living in the Western Sahara. It is also a matter that I feel should be of the utmost to the United States government.

Last week, a letter was signed by 229 Members of the House of Representatives to President Obama, asking his Administration to work for greater integration and cooperation in the Maghreb Region of North Africa by supporting the autonomy plan of the Kingdom of Morocco as a resolution to the 35-year conflict in the Western Sahara.

That letter cited the potential for an independent Western Sahara to become a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and so suggested that Morocco’s plan to integrate the Western Sahara – which was declared a Non-Self-Governing Territory in 1963 by the United Nations – into its Kingdom was the only acceptable compromise to end the conflict.

As an American here in the camps, I feel it is my duty to my country to report on the true situation here in the Western Sahara, in what has been called "the last colony in Africa."

When I first arrived in this Muslim, North African nation, I was not sure how my nationality would be perceived, and so I was at first hesitant to make it public. But one of the very first people I met asked me for an American flag. He was heartbroken when I told him I hadn’t brought any. "We Saharawis love people from all countries, and especially Americans," he said. "America is the country that first set the example for all other colonized people to follow. You proved that any people can overthrow a monarchy in defense of democracy and their right to self-determination."

In 1775, the American people said to their colonizers, a bigger nation with a stronger army, and said, "We want to be free. We want to govern our own land. And there is no sacrifice that we are not willing to make to be able to do so."

The Saharawi people want to do the same. Like us, they realized that when you know something is yours, when you know you are fighting for a just cause, you must make any sacrifice to take it. For over 16 years they fought a valiant war defending their right to self-determination. But the world is not as it was in 1775. Wars of independence are no longer in style. Realizing this, the Saharawis agreed to a ceasefire in 1991 when they were promised a referendum on independence by the UN. As has been the norm for them, they were let down.

Since 1991, they have been waging a peaceful, diplomatic campaign for their right to self-determination – a right that has been denied by the Kingdom of Morocco for more than three decades, and a right recognized by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and over 80 countries around the world. Unfortunately, the United States is not on that list.

I have worked for a Republican Representative in the House, and also on President Obama’s campaign, so I know that there are many issues that divide the two parties. But I also know that the one thing that unites all Members of Congress and all Americans is an unquenchable thirst for freedom and democracy. For most of our history, it was this thirst that drove our foreign policy.

But since September 11, 2001, our actions in the Middle East and North Africa have been driven by one word: terrorism. Or better stated, a fear of terrorism. This fear was apparent in the letter sent to President Obama. Once upon a time, America did not make its decisions out of fear, but out of a profound sense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the case of the Western Sahara, truth and justice, not fear, should guide the United States’ policy.

To the claim that the Western Sahara might become a breeding ground for terrorists, I can tell you – from direct, first-hand observation – that the Saharawi people would never let anything of the sort happen in their homeland. The Saharawis have been waiting here in the desert for over 30 years. They have consistently been given false hopes by the international community, and then terribly disappointed. They have little food, less water, and even less reason to believe in a decent future. They are an entirely Muslim people. According to circles of security and terrorism experts, this is normally where terrorists should be born.

Instead, what has developed here is an incredible mix of popular and representative democracy. Instead of terrorist cells, the Saharawis have set up a women’s union, neighborhood councils, and a national parliament. Instead of suicide bombers, the Saharawis have bred local representatives, federal ministers, and Congressmen and women, like yourselves. They are an extremely tolerant, peaceful, and democratic people, and when they are finally able to govern and inhabit their historical territory, they will never let their borders be infiltrated by terrorists.

I cannot deny that Morocco has been a historical and cooperative friend to the United States. But it is still a monarchy. The Moroccans claim to be democratizing, but decisions are still made by a single individual, who has obtained his position not by popular election or the will of the people, but by the sheer chance of his birth.

The United Nations has proven that it does not have the backbone to enforce the Saharawis’ right to self-determination. There is one world power, however, that has, for the past 233 years, been willing to stand up for what is right. Our country rightly talks about inspiring democracy and openness in the Middle East and North Africa. Here is our chance to stand up for those principles: the very ones upon which our nation was founded. Here is our chance to say to the world that the path to independence and democracy was not blocked behind us, but cleared and paved so that the colonized people of the world who seek the self-determination of their own futures might follow.

The United States of America are beginning to lose the favor of the world. I have lived in three foreign countries, and experienced this reality firsthand. But I have also seen that people around the globe still want to believe in America, in its values, in its goodness. People worldwide want America to once again be the leader it can and should be. This is a perfect opportunity to show what we Americans are truly made of.

All of the Saharawis I have spoken to, with no exceptions, have said that they are ready return to war if they must. But if the United States government sends a clear message to the Kingdom of Morocco, to the United Nations, and to the world that the Saharawi people’s UN-recognized right to hold a free and fair referendum on the political future of their land, the Western Sahara, must be respected, then the terrible loss of life involved in any war can be avoided. We can show that we truly support freedom, democracy, and diplomacy.

I will conclude with the words of a dear Saharawi friend who said, "The whole world once looked up to America because it stood for justice and freedom around the globe. That image is not yet entirely lost. We want to believe in America again."

Sincerely,

Tim Kustusch