Mapping of the Conflict in Western Sahara

By: Dr. Sidi M. Omar

Introduction

The conflict in Western Sahara between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO has lasted for over three decades, and continues to pose a potential danger for stability and security in the entire region of North Africa. Despite the successive efforts of the international community to resolve the conflict, a mutually agreed solution remains elusive.

Drawing on theories of conflict resolution, I will present in the paper a roadmap of the conflict in Western Sahara by analysing its history and context, primary parties, core issues and the positions and interests of the parties involved as well as the conflict dynamics. The aim of mapping the conflict is to provide a clearer understanding of the root causes, nature, dynamics and the possibilities for resolving the dispute.

Various conflict analysis tools are employed to map out conflicts. However, I will draw on the model of “conflict mapping”, which was proposed by Paul Wehr (1979) and then developed by other peace and conflict researchers.

The paper will begin with the discussion of the history and context of the conflict in order to determine the setting in which it started and evolved. The analysis will focus on the factors that made the conflict emerge in the first place, and then escalate in 1975 to reach varying degrees of violence in the following years.

The primary parties to the conflict in question will be identified and the nature of power relations between them will be analysed. Interested parties and “third parties” will also be considered, with special emphasis on their forms of involvement in the conflict. After identifying the primary parties, the analysis will focus on the core issues around which the conflict has developed and how they are perceived and articulated by the two parties.

The paper will analyse the dynamics of the conflict including the precipitating events and the stages of escalation and de-escalation through which the conflict has passed. Finally, a set of possibilities for resolving the conflict will be outlined.

Before presenting a roadmap of the conflict, it is important to say a few words about the nature of the dispute in question. As will be made clear later, the conflict in Western Sahara is not a societal, communal, ethnic, religious or class conflict. Rather, it is an international conflict of a political nature between a state and a national liberation movement. From a conflict resolution perspective, it is framed within the context of what Edward Rice calls “wars of the third kind” (quoted in Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse, 1999:69). This category refers to conflicts in which communities seek to create their own states in wars of national liberation (Holsti, 1996:27). Moreover, the question of Western Sahara is considered by the United Nations as a decolonisation issue. This explains the fact that the territory is still on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories still to be decolonised.

Overall, my main aim in this paper is to demonstrate that the peaceful and sustainable solution to the conflict in Western Sahara necessarily entails the exercise by the people of the territory of their internationally recognised and inalienable right to self-determination through a negotiated, democratic and free process consistent with international legality and norms.

Conflict History and Context

To set the background of the conflict situation, it is important to examine the key historical and political elements that shaped the setting in which the violent conflict emerged and evolved. This contextualisation is also useful in determining the origins and the root causes of the dispute.

One key element of analysis is the existing political and decision-making structures of the parties. It is hence necessary to examine the nature of the political regime ruling in Morocco at the time. As will be made clear later, the nature of this political regime had a significant bearing on how the conflict emerged in the first place.

All Moroccan constitutions[1] stipulate that the country is “a democratic, social, constitutional monarchy”. However, unlike modern constitutional monarchies, where the monarch “reigns but does not rule”, the king in Morocco is the one who appoints the prime minister and other cabinet members and terminates their services. He is also both a temporal and spiritual ruler (Amir Al-Mu’minin or Commander of the Faithful) who rules by decrees, and is not answerable to any state institution. Moreover, the monarchical system of the state is one of the “red zones” that cannot be subject to any constitutional revision.

Because of its authoritarian nature[2], the Moroccan regime oftentimes has had to contain and counter the mounting opposition of many Moroccans who wanted a more democratic system of government. One of the most disturbing examples of the regime’s intolerance of opposition was the 1965 riots in which hundreds of protesters were killed by government forces.[3] The riots symbolised the growing rift between the monarchy and the opposing groups that were calling for an end to the monarchical rule. Opposition to the monarchy continued and developed into other riots in 1981, 1984, 1990 and 1999, which were crushed by state security forces.[4]

To restore its challenged legitimacy, the regime has also resorted to mobilisation techniques by creating the false impression of a “national unanimity” around some “sacred causes” (Hammoudi, 1997: xiv) that serve to saturate the political spectrum and refocus the public attention and resources. One prime example, in this regard, was the expansionist policy that the regime set in motion in the mid-1950s. The significance of this policy lies in the fact that it brought to the surface a latent conflict of interests, which would ultimately develop into a manifest, violent confrontation.

In the historical narrative of the conflict in Western Sahara, the year 1957 has special importance. It was precisely in that year (14 October 1957) that Morocco, for the first time, declared officially at the UN that Mauritania, the then Spanish Sahara and Ifni “were integral parts of the Moroccan territory”, and hence they were not entitled to decolonisation (Soroeta Liceras, 2001:38). As will be discussed later, Morocco’s argument, as explained by King Mohamed V in September 1958, was that the peoples of these territories were historically Moroccans and “will always be part of the Moroccan community” (Villar, 1982: 65).

There is ample evidence that Morocco’s territorial claims to its neighbours originated in the expansionist ideology of the “Greater Morocco”, which was advanced in the late 1950s by Allal el-Fassi, the leader of the ultranationalist Istiqlal party, shortly after Morocco gained its independence from France in March 1956.[5] This ideology, which was fully embraced by the monarchy[6], asserted that the then Spanish Sahara, all of Mauritania, a large part of western Algeria and even St. Louis du Sénégal and a slice of northern Mali (including Timbuktu) all belonged historically to Morocco (Villar 1982; Hodges 1983; Pazzanita 2006—to cite just a few authors).

However, in practice Morocco’s numerous claims were fraught with contradictions. For instance, as early as 1966, Morocco publicly recognised the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination at the UN VI committee. This position was reiterated consistently until 1974. By the early 1960s, Morocco had quietly dropped its claims to parts of Mali and Senegal. The claim to Mauritania was upheld throughout the 1960s, until 1969 when Morocco finally recognised the country as an independent state.[7] As for Algeria, Morocco launched a failed military campaign to take forcefully part of the Algerian western desert in 1963 in what came to be known as the “Sand War”.

After dropping its territorial claims to the other countries, Morocco centred its attention on the then Spanish Sahara. When Spain announced that it would hold a self-determination referendum in the territory by mid 1975, Morocco tried to frustrate the promised referendum. Morocco, who was then joined by Mauritania, requested the UN General Assembly to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On 13 December 1974, the General Assembly requested the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the status of Western Sahara prior to Spanish colonisation, and called on Spain to postpone the referendum. [8]

In its historic advisory opinion on Western Sahara, issued on 16 October 1975, the ICJ very clearly established that there never existed “any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity”. It also endorsed “the decolonisation of Western Sahara” by means of the exercise of “self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory”.[9]

Morocco was hoping that its claim to the territory would be legally endorsed by the ICJ. The advisory opinion, however, dealt a heavy blow to its plans and put the monarchical regime in a very difficult situation. It is significant to note at this point that the rule of King Hassan II of Morocco was challenged by two coup d’état in July 1971 and August 1972. Although the king survived both attempts, the mounting discontent in the country, particularly amid the Moroccan military, made it even more difficult for the monarchy.

Another major element of the historical narrative of Western Sahara was the decolonisation process of the 1960s thanks to which almost all African countries gained their independence form the colonial powers. In the context of this process, the United Nations called on Spain, as early as 1965, to put an end to its colonial domination of the then Spanish Sahara, and to allow its people to exercise their right to self-determination. Obviously, all these elements went against Morocco’s territorial claims to the territory.

Finally, another significant element to take into account was the emergence of the Frente POLISARIO in 1973 as a nationalist and anti-colonial movement representing the Sahrawi people and their collective will to freedom and national independence (Cisteró Bahima and Freixes Sanjuán, 1987: 26; De Piniés, 1990: 62).

In view of the discussion above, it is clear that, by 1975, the monarchy in Morocco was in an increasingly difficult situation and in a dire need for an outlet for its domestic problems. This explains the decision taken by King Hassan II, a few days after the issue of the ICJ ruling, to order a so-called “Green March” of 350,000 Moroccans to “peacefully” march into Western Sahara. Furthermore, by 31 October 1975, Moroccan forces were already advancing and invading the northern part of the territory. Although the “Green March” had been prepared well before the ICJ issued its verdict[10], it was the major event that triggered a set of events that led to the outbreak of the violent conflict in Western Sahara.

The monarchy’s search for a “sacred cause” to divert the attention from its growing domestic problems was therefore the main reason behind Morocco’s decision to invade and annex Western Sahara in 1975 in violation of UN resolutions and the ICJ ruling. Another key factor was clearly Morocco’s increased interest in the abundant natural resources of the territory particularly fish and phosphate. The Cold War geostrategic considerations also had a significant bearing on Morocco’s move into Western Sahara. It is an open secret that, before and after the outbreak of the conflict, Morocco received huge political and military support from major Western powers, particularly the US and France. As some commentators have observed, the support was “an act of political expediency grounded in East–West political alliances” (Franck cited in Mundy, 2006: 291).
In the main, Morocco’s expansionist ideology of the “Greater Morocco” and its political implications on the regional level was the major element that set up the context in which the conflict in Western Sahara emerged and evolved. Other elements have also contributed, in varying degrees, to shaping the conflict context. Conflicts change and their contexts change as well, but it is essential to gain a full understanding of the key elements that constitute the settings in which conflicts emerge in the first place.

Conflict Parties

A key element of conflict analysis is evidently the parties that openly oppose each other and have a direct stake in the outcome of the conflict.

In the case of Western Sahara, the two conflicting parties[11] are: first, the Kingdom of Morocco and mainly the ruling regime that has mobilised the army and security services to carry on its policies and achieve its goals in the conflict. It has also managed to win the support of some political parties and ordinary people for its annexation of Western Sahara. Second, the Frente POLISARIO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people[12], which has equally mobilised its army to carry on the struggle against Morocco. It has moreover gained massive support for its cause among Sahrawis in the territories under Moroccan occupation, in the Sahrawi refugee camps in south-western Algeria and in the diaspora.

As indicated above, the conflict is essentially an international conflict of a political nature between a state and a liberation movement. This fact puts the two parties into a situation of clear asymmetry in terms not only of power and resources but also of international alliances.

The mainly interested parties in the conflict are the two neighbouring countries to Western Sahara, Algeria and Mauritania. Algeria’s interest in the conflict is due to a number of reasons. First, it has always supported the internationally recognised right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination, and has remained faithful to this position. This stance is also reinforced by Algeria’s opposition to the use of force to alter the “borders inherited from colonialism”, a principle sanctioned by the African organisation. Second, Algeria was the only neighbouring country that did not take part in Madrid accords that led to the partition of Western Sahara. Third, it hosts over 150,000 Sahrawi refugees who were driven out of their land because of the Moroccan-Mauritanian invasion of the territory. Fourth, it is interested in the restoration of peace and stability in the whole region. As for Mauritania, which was once claimed by Morocco, its interest lies in its concern for peace and stability of a neighbouring country. This is why the two countries are invited, as “neighbouring countries”, to the UN-sponsored negotiations on the future of Western Sahara.

As indicated earlier, Morocco received huge political and military support from Western powers during and after the Cold War. A key power that has unreservedly supported Morocco is France, which was the only external party that intervened militarily in the war in the 1970s on the Moroccan-Mauritanian side. Moreover, it has played a crucial role at the Security Council in support of Morocco’s position.[13]

Another key party is Spain, the former colonial power of Western Sahara and the de jure administering power of the territory. Many observers have indicated that now the US and France may hold the key to resolving the conflict given their close ties with Morocco and their influence at the Security Council. However, Spain still has legal obligations towards Western Sahara and its people ensuing from its failure to decolonise the territory in line with the UN doctrine. According to Ruiz Miguel (2008), Spain is still under the obligation to observe, respect and promote the right to self-determination of the people of the territory and to maintain the separate and distinct character of the latter with a view to avoiding any obstacle to the future self-determination.[14] Yet, all Spanish successive governments have failed to assume their responsibilities vis-à-vis the decolonisation of Western Sahara. Furthermore, the current Socialist-led Spanish government has been lately engaged in diplomatic actions that, despite their rhetoric, have only complicated the situation and cast more doubts over Spain’s role as an impartial facilitator in the conflict resolution process.

Other third parties include the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union) and the United Nations that intervened, at different stages of the conflict, to settle the dispute.

Causes and Core Issues of the Conflict

After identifying the primary parties, the analysis will now focus on determining the causes that underlie the conflict and the core issues around which it has developed, and then how they are perceived and articulated by the two parties. Without doubt, identifying the causes of a certain conflict helps us both to understand the nature of the conflict and to deal with it.

The root causes of any given conflict are typically the situations and factors that make a social conflict escalate and reach varying degrees of violence. Conflicts are obviously never mono-causal, but are underpinned by a variety of causes that dynamically interact over the span of the conflict.

My focus however will be on what I consider the structural causes of the conflict in Western Sahara. By structural causes, I mean the “underlying reasons” of the violent conflict that set the global context in which the parties interact, pursue their goals and use the means to achieve them. As outlined above, the structural direct cause of the conflict in Western Sahara is thus Morocco’s military invasion and annexation of the territory in 1975, which provoked resistance on the part of the Sahrawi people under the leadership of the Frente POLISARIO. This situation has led to more than 16 years of outright war and so far other 17 years of war, but by other means.

Goals of the Parties

To understand the nature of the conflict, it is also important to identify the goals of the conflict parties, or their desirable outcomes of the conflict, and to place these issues within the context of the dispute.

In analysing the goals of the parties, it is also useful to make a distinction between their positions and interests, where the first describes the specific demands publicly articulated by the disputants, and the second refers to the underlying needs that drive them.

Positions of the parties

In any conflict situation, the goals of the parties and the way in which they articulate them (positions) are typically described as diametric opposites. As regards the conflict in question, Morocco’s recourse to violence (in the form of invasion and forced annexation) was prompted, first, by its intention to recover what it perceived as a “despoiled” land, and then (in the face of the Sahrawi resistance) to defend the “territorial integrity” of the Kingdom. By contrast, the goal of the Frente POLISARIO is to defend the country (over which Morocco has no legal sovereignty) and liberate it from foreign occupation as a prerequisite for the Sahrawi people to be able to exercise their internationally recognised and inalienable right to self-determination.

The positions of the conflicting parties are usually framed in the form of either a status-quo maintaining or status-quo changing (Sandole, 2007). In this case, Morocco intends to maintain its de facto control of the territory, although no country or international organisation recognises de jure this situation. In contrast, the Frente POLISARIO is engaged in status-quo changing by seeking to put an end to the occupation and institute an independent state as a result of a self-determination referendum.

Interests of the parties

Whilst positions are articulated in visible forms and could be assessed objectively, needs and interests are subjective and hence hard to gauge accurately. However, this does not mean that these self-perceived elements cannot be analysed, but any analysis requires some caution. Caution is essential, not least in the case of third parties that seek to intervene to help settle a given conflict. This is because they have to take into account the parties’ own needs instead of imposing their visions of those needs on the parties.

Unlike the parties’ positions, interests refer to the desires, concerns and fears that underlie those positions. Many theorists contrast interests with positions (Fisher, Ury and Patton, 1991: 40). It is suggested that when framed in terms of positions, conflicts often appear to be highly intractable, since one party may want something that the other party diametrically opposes. It is also argued that redefining the conflict situation in terms of the reasons that underlie the parties’ positions may enable the parties to identify win-win solutions.

Some conflict theorists combine the concepts of interests and needs. However, human needs theorists distinguish between the two, arguing that one of the primary causes of intractable conflicts is people’s unyielding drive to meet their unmet needs on the individual, group and societal level (Northrup, 1989). Interests in this sense may represent tangible things that could be traded and bargained for, whereas needs are intangible things such as identity, security and recognition, which cannot be compromised. Human needs theorists, however, argue that, although needs cannot be traded, they could be addressed in a generally win-win situation (Rothman, 1997) that is beneficial to the parties concerned.

In terms of the conflict in question, the main concern for the Moroccan Kingdom is to preserve the monarchical establishment itself and to sustain its nationalist prestige and, in part, its legitimacy that has inextricably been linked with the issue of Western Sahara. Another key concern lies in maintaining the individual and collective interests of other shareholders that have big stakes in the conflict. These include the military establishment of which bulk is stationed in Western Sahara, and the political and business class that form part of the Makhzen system. [15]

As far as the Sahrawis are concerned, it is their collective feeling that their national identity is being attacked and denied by the Moroccan state that has prompted their involvement in the conflict in the first place. For them, Morocco does not only claim their land, but also denies the existence of a Sahrawi people. The translation of this denial in the realm of politics was the bombardment of Sahrawi civilians with napalm and white phosphorus in 1975, and the scorched-earth policy pursued by Moroccan occupying forces in Western Sahara. It is also reflected in the various forms of violence practiced nowadays against civilians in the territories under Morocco’s occupation, and the deliberate destruction of Sahrawi cultural heritage.

Some commentators describe the conflict in Western Sahara as the case of two nationalisms pitted against each other. However, unlike the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where two national identities fight for establishing themselves on the same land, the Moroccan-Sahrawi conflict was originally triggered by a ruling elite making use of an ultranationalist ideology for rallying support for its cause. It is true that the official discourse of the Moroccan regime about the “morrocanity” of Western Sahara has been embraced and widely diffused by all state apparatuses to the extent that it has purportedly become the first national cause. Yet the realties on the ground demonstrate that, notwithstanding the timid opening taking place under the new king, the question of Western Sahara is still the exclusive domain of the ruling elite. It is little wonder bearing in mind the incalculable consequences that a possible solution to this question may have on the existence of the monarchy itself.

It is this context of confrontation of interests and needs that has largely shaped the way in which the parties have related to each other, which has been characterised by a great deal of hostility and suspicion mainly during the violent stage of the conflict. Even though the feelings of enmity may have been lessened following the cease-fire of 1991, suspicion is still there especially after Morocco unilaterally backed out from the mutually agreed and UN-sanctioned agreements. The persistence of human rights violations in the territories under Moroccan occupation has also sparked strong feelings of resentment and rejection amid Sahrawi population. If these violations continue, they may lead to further violence, and the situation may slide again into the spiral of violent conflict.

Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (1990:282) have suggested that when conflicts escalate, the aggressor, rather than taking the blame itself, tends to place the blame on the victim because it challenges its aggression. By doing this, the aggressor shapes its own reality and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that the victim is malevolent. A prime example of this behaviour is the Moroccan official and media discourse that repeatedly describes the Frente POLISARIO as a “secessionist movement” in order to justify its aggressive conduct.

The search for a mutually negotiated solution to the conflict would primarily require restoration of trust between the two conflicting parties. This may involve attempts to break the psychological barriers, which have been erected in the course of the conflict, through incremental confidence-building measures (CBMs). A few initiatives have been made in this regard including, for instance, visits by Moroccan journalists to the Sahrawi refugee camps, and the publication in some Moroccan newspapers of interviews and articles penned by Sahrawi activists and officials of the Frente POLISARIO. The United Nations has also been engaged in a series of CBMs and it is willing to expand those measures, but Morocco is still unwilling to accept the proposed arrangements.[16]

Conflict Dynamics

Conflict is “something ever-changing, ever dynamic” (Galtung, 1996:89). Even if the parties are at a stalemate, aspects of the conflict context keep on shifting. Moreover, the ways in which the parties respond to conflict and the means by which they attempt to achieve their goals influence and direct the course of the conflict. The action of one party determines to some extent the responding action of the other party, and it is this action-reaction pattern that typically shapes conflict dynamics.

As outlined above, the “Green March” and the subsequent invasion by Moroccan forces of the northern parts of Western Sahara in October 1975 were “triggering events” that marked the start of the manifest conflict between Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO.

Since its beginning, the conflict witnessed a rapid escalation of violence with destructive consequences for both parties. However, by the early 1980s, the intensity of the conflict was reduced due to the construction of the Moroccan defensive walls (the berm) and the huge cost that Morocco was incurring to continue the war. By that time, the two parties came to realise that neither side was able to achieve a military solution to the conflict. This situation provoked a stalemate, which gave the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union) and the United Nations an opportunity to intervene by brokering a peace deal that the two parties accepted. With the entry into force of the UN-supervised cease-fire in September 1991, which is still in place, the violent conflict was completely de-escalated. This de-escalation phase, which some would describe as one of “no war, no peace”, is what prevails now and no one is certain of what it may lead to. Will it lead to a final solution, the continuation of the status quo, or, what is worse, the resumption of hostilities? This question cannot be easily answered.

Possibilities for Solution

In the context of the previous discussion, I will now outline the prospects for resolving the conflict and the possibilities to which they may lead. I will mention these possibilities in an order of likelihood.

1. In my view[17], it seems more likely now that the impasse will continue for some time. Given the already known positions of the two parties and the lack of interest by the key powers in the Security Council to press for any solution to this low intensity conflict, there seems to be no way out in the near future. The status quo is likely to continue for many months or years to come. Obviously, the maintenance of the status quo has thus far benefited Morocco, which continues to control three-quarters of Western Sahara, whilst seeking to obtain international recognition for its de facto annexation of the territory.

2. Another possibility is that the two parties engage in direct negotiations in good faith, without preconditions, to achieve a mutually acceptable political solution as requested by the Security Council in its latest resolutions on Western Sahara. However, given the history of negotiations between the two parties, where agreements were concluded and sanctioned by the UN and then violated with impunity by Morocco, negotiations may not lead to any substantive results unless new factors are brought into play.

2.1. Among these factors may be the intensification of the Sahrawi peaceful uprising in the occupied territories that began in May 2005, which may make the situation much harder for Morocco, compelling it then to consider negotiating for a settlement. However, it is still too early to assess what impact the uprising may have on the situation in Morocco in the long run.

2.2. Another related factor is the possibility of drastic internal changes taking place in one side that may compel it to go to the negotiating table. What happened in Indonesia in 1998 in relation to the case of East Timor is an example of how significant changes in one camp could lead to the settlement of a protracted conflict.

2.3. Another important factor, which has until now been clearly absent, is a stronger involvement by the UN in the resolution of the conflict and a greater interest by key powers in exerting considerable pressure on Morocco to allow the self-determination referendum to take place. For the UN to engage very actively in the issue it may have to resort to Chapter VII of its Charter, which provides for enforcement measures. However, it is very likely that France will oppose any resolution imposing an unfavourable solution on Morocco.

3. Another possibility is that the two parties voluntarily, with or without the assistance of the UN, reach a mutually agreed arrangement leading to a just, lasting, and viable solution consistent with international legality. For this to happen, however, it requires a genuine political will on the part of the elite currently ruling in Morocco that has not yet showed any interest in any solution, not least in the context of international legality and norms.
4. Lastly, should all these factors fail to bring about a solution to the conflict, the likelihood of active hostilities between the two parties would be greater. Obviously, the resumption of violent conflict in Western Sahara will be in nobody’s interest, and it is certain that it will be a source of extreme instability not only in northwest Africa but also in the whole Mediterranean region.

Conclusion

The discussion above has made it clear that the direct, structural cause that underlies the ongoing conflict in Western Sahara between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Frente POLISARIO is Morocco’s military invasion and annexation of the territory in 1975. The origins of this action, however, lie in the expansionist ideology of the “Greater Morocco” and the subsequent territorial claims that the Moroccan regime has laid on its neighbours. As expected, Morocco’s military invasion provoked a reaction and resistance on the part of the Sahrawi people led by the Frente POLISARIO.

This situation has led to a protracted conflict that has lasted for over three decades, which continues to pose a potential danger for stability and security in the entire region of North Africa. Despite the successive efforts of the international community to resolve the conflict, a mutually agreed solution remains elusive. Yet, for the peoples of the region to achieve their aspirations to integration, development and peace, a rapid, just and sustainable solution to the conflict has become more urgent than ever.

In this context, I believe that a peaceful, just and lasting solution to conflict in Western Sahara necessarily entails the exercise by the Sahrawi people of their internationally recognised and inalienable right to self-determination through a negotiated, democratic and free process that is consistent with international legality and norms. In this process, they could decide their political future, either to be independent, integrate into Morocco or settle for another arrangement. In any case, the final word should be theirs.

I also believe that the success of the UN-led negotiation process will depend not only on the political will on both sides to achieve a mutually acceptable solution consistent with international legality, but also on their ability to think seriously about their relations in the post-conflict context. This process of cooperative thinking will imply, among other things, determining the mutual guarantees in all vital areas, which each party would be willing to grant to the other with a view to achiving not only a win-win solution, but also one that will address the core issues around which the conflict has developed. The proposal presented by the Frente Polisario to the UN in April 2007 contains significant elements to be considered in this regard. What is needed, therefore, is not only a settlement of the conflict that addresses the publically articulated positions of the parties, bus also a transformaion of the root conflict in the first place. In other words, what is needed is a solution that does not only end the hostilities but also seeks to address the structural causes of the violent conflict in order to create the underlying conditions for a sustainable peace in the whole region.

Notas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Since its independence in 1956, Morocco has had five constitutions promulgated respectively in 1962, 1970, 1972, 1992 and 1996.
[2] Many works have been written about the authoritarian nature of the monarchical system in Morocco. One important historical study on this subject is done by the Moroccan scholar, Abdellah Hammoudi’s, in his book Master and Disciple: the Cultural Foundations of Moroccan Authoritarianism (University of Chicago Press, 1997).
[3] Patricia Campbell “Morocco in Transition: Overcoming the Democratic and Human Rights Legacy of King Hassan II”. African Studies Quarterly 7, no. 1, , accessed 2 March 2004.
[4] Because of its repressive history, Morocco has often been listed among the world’s most repressive regimes. See, for instance, “Freedom in the World 2003: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties”, A Special Report to the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 2003.
[5] On 7 July 1956, the Istiqlal daily newspaper, Al Alam, published a map of the “Greater Morocco”, and a month later, the expansionist policy was endorsed by the party’s congress.
[6] In 1957, a new department was created at the Moroccan Interior Ministry called “General Directorate for Saharan and Frontier Affairs” and a cousin of Allal el-Fassi, Abdelkebir, was named head of the department (Pazzanita, 2006).
[7] On 8 June 1970, a treaty of friendship and cooperation was signed in Casablanca between Morocco and Mauritania.
[8] GA resolution 3292 (XXIX) of 13 December 1974.
[9] ICJ (1975) Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, 1975, ICJ 12ICJ, < http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum = 323&code = sa&p1 = 3&p2 = 4&case = 61&k = 69&p3 = 5>, accessed 20 November 2008.
[10] In August 1975, two months before the ICJ issued its ruling, King Hassan II stated that “whatever the result, Morocco will recover its rights over its despoiled provinces no later than toward the end of this year” (quoted in Hodges, 1983: 207).
[11] Mauritania joined Morocco in invading and partitioning Western Sahara by virtue of Madrid accords of 14 November 1975. However, in 1979, it formally abandoned its claim to Western Sahara, and signed a peace agreement with the Frente POLISARIO. Morocco immediately moved to annex the portion previously claimed by Mauritania.
[12] See, for instance, A/RES/34/37 of 21 November 1979.
[13] The Frente POLISARIO publicly voiced great concern about France’s position at the Security Council in April 2008, which rejected any reference to human rights in the Council’s resolution on Western Sahara. The position was described as “contrary to the international community’s efforts for peace in the region.” , accessed 14 July 2009.
[14] See Carlos Ruiz Miguel (2008): “Spain’s Legal Obligations as Administering Power of Western Sahara” a paper delivered at the International Conference on Multilateralism and International Law, with Western Sahara as a Case Study, Pretoria, South Africa (4- 5 December 2008), , accessed 20 July 2009.
[15] Makhzen is a specific form of authority that is present throughout the governing class in Morocco with the king as its linchpin, and it is considered the “power behind the throne”.
[16] One case in point was the reluctance of the Moroccan delegation to discuss and accept the package of CBMs proposed during the UN-sponsored negotiations held in Manhasset last year.
[17] Similar views were expressed in my article Omar, Sidi M. (2008): “The Right to Self-determination and the Indigenous People of Western Sahara”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21-1, 41-57.

/////////////////////

Source: http://www.gees.org/articulo/6705/

Extract from President Obama speech before the UN General Assembly 2009

...This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us -- and I quote -- "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people. (Applause.)

As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. And that guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny. (Applause.)

Sahrawis Need Bargaining Power

By: Abdelmajid

Manhasset rounds of talks between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front have produced little progress as to the peaceful resolution of the conflict of Western Sahara. New changes and positions emanating from the UN mediation and from the influential powers could create new hope. The ¨small talks¨ be held between a limited number of negotiators in a kept secret location in Vienna have replaced the well publicized meetings of Manhasset, New York. But little has occurred in the positions of the parties first concerned. Should we expect a magic touch that will bring Morocco to respect the will of the international community? Or should we read progress carefully as it occur. Yes, I am also from Missouri.

The appointment of Christopher Ross, as the new UN Envoy for Western Sahara, coincided with the inauguration of the Obama Administration. All over the world, peoples have their eyes fixed on any signals from Washington, which can make a dramatic change in their lives. The people of Western Sahara welcomed the change in Washington, for the Bush Administration was too obsessed by its “anti-terrorist” fight. In its last two terms, the Bush Administration stopped only short from recognizing Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. It has encouraged Morocco to invent its miraculous solution of autonomy as a substitute to the carrying out of International Law, under UN supervision in Western Sahara. Washington threatened several times the Sahrawis against any resumption of hostilities in the face of Moroccan intransigent attitude. The appointment of Christopher Ross, an Arabist, familiar with the conflict, and the coming into office of an African-American to the White House news that could create a new momentum for a peaceful solution to the conflict. A hand off attitude from Obama is not enough in this conflict that has plagued the region for so long, created unnecessary suffering for the people and paralyzed the function of the Maghreb union for sometimes, delayed many development opportunities of the people of the Maghreb.
Last month, following a second visit to the region by Christopher Ross, UN Envoy for Western Sahara, the Sahrawis and their allies questioned what the mediator achieved since his last visit, and what are his plans and his strategy to move forward? During his public appearances in the capitals of the Maghreb, Ross talked about the need to resolve “the fundamental issue” and to seek ways to proceed forward. He also referred to self-determination for the Sahrawi people, as well as to relevant Security Council resolutions. During his first visit, there were noticeable gaps in his diplomatic itinerary: Ross stopped short of visiting Addis Ababa and Nouakchott. In regards to the Mauritanian capital, he left it out of his schedule due to the absence of an interlocutor.
After an eclipse of three long months, he reappeared on June 24, in the Algerian capital, the first stop during his second visit to the region. He assured everyone that his mission is on the “right track”, reaffirming his determination to continue searching for a solution to the "big conflict”. This time, Ross chose to meet the Secretary General of the Union of the Maghreb Arab in Rabat, certainly at the initiative of Morocco. This ill advised reunion complicates rather than clarify the invisible dimension of this decolonization conflict. Evading the African Union, an early partner in the UN peace process and including the inactive UMA is a penchant towards Moroccan diplomacy.

What is next in the negotiations? Is the new Envoy -- an insider to the political establishment in Washington - backed by the Obama Administration? This is a simple but unanswered question, for it can hold the key to his success or failure.

In its previous sponsorship and performance during the negotiations, the UN pressured only the Sahrawi party to change its stand: to be more “flexible” and “realistic” and to make the concessions considered necessary for the negotiations to go forward. Even though the mediator does not get his direct instructions from Washington, the peace process in Western Sahara, especially since Baker’s mediation, has been swayed by the direction of the winds that blow from the American capital.

This leads to questions pertaining to the Sahrawi stance: Are the Sahrawis going to place their trust fully and maybe last hope for peace in Christopher Ross, as they did with James A. Baker? Are they going to adopt a wait-and-see attitude hoping that Ross will be able to convince Morocco to adjust its stance? Or, will they hope for a dramatic change of mind in Washington in their favor, because an African- American president may be more empathetic to their cause?

It is clear that the Moroccan-Sahrawi conflict has not been on Barak Obama’s top priority list. This was not the case with the former Bush administration, which handled the issue through the aggressive hand of Eliott Abrams , who was Senior Director of the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs, and later promoted to Deputy National Security Advisor. Abrams gave firm instructions to the UN, disregarded James Baker´s call for Washington’s support, and directed policies through the unsuccessful mediator Van Walsum.

Obama does not seem to be in a hurry to reveal his State Department’s stance on the issue. The recent nomination of Samuel Kaplan, who is an active AIPAC member and a “lawyer with no diplomatic experience”, as US ambassador to Morocco, plays in the hands of Morocco. The new context, allowed the regime in Rabat to use its Middle East card – as it has always done - to promote its own agenda.

However, it would be naïve to ignore the fact that the ultimate goal for all US administrations remains to serve American interests in this volatile North African region. Historically, Washington’s policy oscillated between open military and diplomatic support for Morocco’s “stability”, and the need to promote other US priorities. During G.W. Bush’s administration, the aim was to “fight terrorism” and advance American economic ventures in the oil rich countries. In this context, there are two possible policy approaches or scenarios that the Obama Administration might adopt in regards to the Moroccan-Sahrawi conflict.

The first is that there could be a slight shift in the American stance away from a too close alliance with Morocco, which is stubbornly and aggressively mobilizing around its “autonomy” solutions. This implies a public support for the new mediator and a more sensitive stand as to the plights of the Sahrawi people.

The second scenario is a low profile, with no real change in the policy or major adjustment in the US policy towards Morocco as far as Western Sahara is concerned. People who subscribe to this view consider Washington’s policy on long-standing issues such as the case of Western Sahara, as unchanging and a continuation of policies adopted by previous administrations.

In other words, they believe in a pragmatic Obama who will disengage from previous Administration positions but will pay little attention to the question of decolonization in Western Sahara, or to the plight of the Sahrawi refugees in the desert, and will not recognize or see the political merit in the Sahrawi non-violent resistance in the occupied territories. Obama, according to this view, will not consider any initiative on this matter, while Morocco will count on its friends in the Middle East to ensure that no such positive initiative sees the light of day. This was the case with former US administrations, which only sporadically showed interest in the UN-sponsored peace proposals and Resolutions regarding the Sahrawi conflict, sometimes very late in their last year in office.

Conflicting interests and pressures can generate a middle ground, often assumed by the Sahrawi negotiators. The Sahrawis base their policy on the hope that the US administration might become an honest broker, thereby facilitating Moroccan-Sahrawi negotiations without taking a stand and without siding with one party against the other.
In such a scenario, the difficulties facing the new mediator unambiguously lie with the official Moroccan stance. Putting aside the French and Spanish enthusiasm for the Moroccan proposal, and assuming the Obama administration opts for a neutral position, means that negotiations will unfold according to the balance of power between the negotiating parties.

Here one may ask: What cards do the Sahrawis and their supporters hold that can tip the scales in their favor?

Since 1975, Morocco has been occupying two-thirds of Western Sahara by sheer force and arming itself to the teeth in order to ensure its military superiority. During the last few months, the situation on the military front has been escalating. The cease-fire is precarious and has been threatened by Morocco’s repressive administration. While denying the people of Western Sahara their basic right to self-determination, Morocco is holding the UN mission in the territory hostage in an endless and expensive game, namely by delaying the holding of a free and fair referendum.

The territory of Western Sahara and its population are kept at bay and besieged by a Moroccan blockage. No media representatives or foreigners are allowed to visit, unless escorted by government officials. The regime in Rabat keeps the population under its tight control and suppresses any opposition or serious challenge to its authority. The peaceful Sahrawi resistance in the occupied territories is repressed through coercive means, including the use of the military which camp in every street to deter any protest or demonstration. Peaceful demonstrators are crushed, and activists thrown in jail, with no consideration for their legal rights. Furthermore, the Sahrawi population is divided by a long and formidable wall built by Morocco in the eighties. The wall, guarded by thousands of Moroccan soldiers, intensifies the suffering of the Sahrawi people by tearing families and communities apart. It also depletes the UNHCR’s meager resources, used to arrange for family visits, which requires transporting people across the prohibitive wall.

Since 1991, the failure of the UN to carry out its peace plan has created an abnormal situation on the ground. The UN is kept silent and stands impotent, even while human rights violations are being committed at its door steps. The various peace plans that were generated in this longest peace process have deepened the frustration of the Sahrawis; their situation remains grim.

In accepting the Baker Plan II, the Sahrawi negotiators acquiesced to Morocco’s request to temporarily administer the territory, but did not recognize any legal and permanent rights to the territory. However, the substitution of the UN Settlement Plan with the Baker Plan, which was accepted by the Sahrawis and rejected by Morocco, has certainly weakened the Sahrawi negotiating position and restricted their ability to maneuver in subsequent negotiations. The Sahrawis were further restrained by major concessions they made to put aside, even temporarily, armed struggle as a means to resist occupation, and perhaps more detrimental to de facto de-link the cease-fire from the political solution.

Currently, the Sahrawis do not have the negotiating leverage to counter Morocco’s maximalist position. Meanwhile, Morocco’s friends are attempting to put an end to all forms of armed resistance against the Moroccan occupation, and are concurrently pressuring Sahrawi allies and supporters to normalize their relations with Rabat.
The new mediator’s strategy to the negotiations is to ensure they creep like a snail. This approach could further decrease the visibility of the Western Sahara conflict and reduce international pressure on the parties. It will encourage Morocco’s defiant attitude, mainly to impose conditions, while the Polisario will be required to offer new concessions.

In any case, if the negotiations continue with no progress in sight, the lapse of time and political inertia will further weaken the Sahrawi bargaining position. Further vulnerability in the Polisario position will set the stage to an unexpected return to war.
Negotiations for a peace settlement could commence seriously only when Morocco recognizes that its autonomy plan is obsolete. Furthermore, cooperation with the UN should be contingent on a comprehensive road map which provides for the self-determination of the Sahrawi people. In this case, self-determination must mean full conformity with UN Resolutions and international legal principles and standards and not as Morocco wishes it to mean or to be defined.

In the next round of negotiations, Christopher Ross must not lose time and credibility, and he should avoid obfuscating the issues, or eclipsing his mandate by seeking to “reinstate confidence” between the parties through never-ending so-called informal and non-binding talks. Such an approach will entrench the schisms and differences between the parties. More importantly, private consultations with each party separately, as Ross proposes, will diminish international pressure on them to cooperate, and will produce false impressions, especially since they are focused on resolving unsubstantial issues.
In this context, the Polisario Front must concentrate its efforts on urgent objectives: it must demand a freeze on all colonial policies and activities Morocco is pursuing in the territory, including an end to political repression of Sahrawi peaceful forms of resistance and to the plundering of Sahrawi national resources. The Polisario must remind and urge the United Nations to comply with its central responsibility, namely to provide protection to the Sahrawi people. It must demand of the UN to play a more active role in improving the social and humanitarian situation in the territory, while pursuing more vigorous negotiations in order to implement its own Resolutions that call for the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination.

The Sahrawis face precarious conditions and a watershed in their history. Consequently, they are required to re-evaluate their bargaining cards and potential in regards to the negotiations and their strategies of resistance.

The Sahrawi demands are legitimate. The protection of the civilian population in the territories should not be subject to progress at the negotiating table. This objective is critical and must be pursued within a given time frame by the mediator.

The success of the Sahrawi-Moroccan talks cannot and should not be measured by “confidence-building” indicators; rather by concrete improvements on the ground. The outcome of such negotiations must be felt by the Sahrawi population in their daily confrontation with the occupier. Christopher Ross early optimism about holding new talks is a misplaced note.

During the last eighteen years, the Sahrawi population seems to have lost confidence in the UN-sponsored negotiations. Christopher Ross’s first six months have done very little to change that.

25.06.09

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.

Why the Maghreb Really Matters

Editor: John Feffer
---------------------

The Maghreb is again a major talking point in the United States. In the perceived interests of fighting terrorism and promoting trade, a group of politicians and pundits are urging the Obama administration to side with Morocco and against self-determination for the Sahrawis of Western Sahara. They also urge a regional union for the Maghreb. Yet reaching for a quick fix that supports Morocco’s campaigns in any of these areas would set such a Maghreb Union back years.

Those who see the Sahrawi’s decades-long reach for freedom as an obstacle to the perceived bigger picture often have high profiles. Among them are a wrong-headed group of U.S. members of Congress who wrote to President Obama in April. Their letter suggested that the president should set in stone an extraordinarily flawed solution promoted by Western Sahara’s illegal occupiers — Morocco — to entrap the Sahrawi in an autonomous structure rather than offering self-determination, which is their just and legal right.

This group of legislators took their lead and some of their language from a new report Why the Maghreb Matters from the Potomac Institute and the Conflict Management Program at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). The report presents the long-stalled union in the Maghreb region as posing both significant threats and opportunities for U.S. interests. In seeking to over-promote both scenarios, the report highlights a common reaction of those looking to find an end-game solution in the region at whatever cost: over-simplification.

The cost in this case, should the U.S. government and the international community continue such realpolitik analysis, is the welfare of more than 200,000 people in the occupied territories of Western Sahara, Africa’s last colony.

Why the Maghreb?

The Maghreb — generally including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, and Western Sahara — is significant for many reasons. According to the Potomac/SAIS report, "the U.S. government should have a profound interest in North Africa because developments in the region impact significantly on our national interests." These developments relate first of all to trade and investment. Countries within the region have tended to under-perform economically. So, the argument goes, a regional union based on free and fair trade is likely to benefit everyone, including the United States.

Few would dispute the importance of promoting economic development in the region. But when the discussion turns to the Maghreb’s significance in terms of threats, disagreements arise. The Potomac/SAIS report focuses on the threat of terrorism and highlights a five-fold increase in terrorist attacks in the region since 2001. That these figures indicate a serious problem for civilians in the region is undeniable.

Yet, identifying their source, both geographical and ideological, has become a blame game with the highest possible stakes. The United States and others are in danger of not only getting it all terribly wrong by allying with Rabat in the efforts to stamp out terrorism in the region but of casting a massive injustice upon the Sahrawis.

Documented cases of human rights violations abound. In a report late in 2008, Human Rights Watch "found that Moroccan authorities repress this right [of self-determination] through laws penalizing affronts to Morocco’s ‘territorial integrity,’ through arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, restrictions on associations and assemblies, and through police violence and harassment that goes unpunished."

Why then have key analysts and policymakers in the Untied States ignored these factors and viewed the Moroccan perpetrators of these acts as the solution to the problem?

The Real Problem in the Maghreb

For the last three decades, Morocco has denied Western Sahara the basic human right to self-determination, one of the tenets of the United Nations. An International Court of Justice ruling in 1975 confirmed Morocco’s invasion as illegal. Numerous UN resolutions established the mechanism for a referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara. And there has been a long-running UN mission in the region designed to move the populace toward self-determination. Still, the forced occupation of Western Sahara continues.

In Western Sahara, 160,000 Moroccan military and para-military personnel are aided by one of the world’s largest minefields and by a 2,700 km security wall that runs right through communities and extended families. We Sahrawi sought the inclusion of a human rights monitor in the UN mission. But the proposal met with resistance from a slick and expensive lobbying effort run by Morroco’s foreign public relations representatives (all nine of them) and by a recalcitrant and counter-intuitive France, which used its veto to block the proposal.

So, the reality, as opposed to the realpolitik, makes a compelling case against Morocco’s tainted "autonomy" proposal (in actuality, a "non-independence" proposal). Generalizations about terrorism and threats to U.S. interests should not detract attention from the real problem at the center of the Maghreb: the denial of basic human rights to those who live in Africa’s last colony, Western Sahara.

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

Aminatou Haidar is a Sahrawi human-rights defender, the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award laureate, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.