tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-191077492024-03-08T09:10:27.872-08:00Sahara-WatchInsights and analysis from an American observer of the Western Sahara conflict<br>
sahara.watch@gmail.comsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-61432330564416268402008-06-04T06:32:00.000-07:002008-06-04T06:48:28.068-07:00MACP Steals A Page from Karl Rove's Playbook<img style="float:left; margin:0 5px 5px 0" width="200" src="http://trenches.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/rove.jpg" border="0" alt="" />The <a href="www.moroccanamericanpolicy.org/">Moroccan-American Comittee for Policy</a> (MACP), a lobbying group funded by the King of Morocco, has scored two media coups recently against the Polisario Front, leaders of the Western Saharan independence movements. The first was <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtYmv0V8lNrJ_J-WKosWEwrNH8dQD90MUTQG2">a highly uncritical post</a> from the Associated Press that would have failed any Journalism 101 student. The second is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/africa/04sahara.html?ref=africa">a more recent article in the New York Times</a> that places more doubt upon the subject.<br /><br />Brining a half dozen alleged victims of abuses in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria to the US and the UN headquarters, MACP has revved up its campaign to discredit Polisario morally. These defectors -- who have essentially become paid lobbyists for Morocco and whose word is to be trusted at that level -- are claiming a whole range of misdeeds at the hands of Polisario.<br /><br />This new media campaign suggests that Morocco is increasingly frustrated with the peace process and is launching a new offensive to build support for unilateral autonomy.<br /><br />What is more interesting, though, is that these smear tactics reek of Carl Rove, the largely discredited (if highly successful) former political advisor to President George W. Bush. How so?<br /><br /><em>Attack your opponent where he is strongest and you are weakest.</em><br /><br />In 2004, Rove used this tactic against Sen. John Kerry's war record in Vietnam, which was clearly a lot more stellar than Bush's cushy time in the National Guard. Indeed, there was clear evidence that Bush had been derelict in his duties. But after being '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating">swift boat-ed</a>', there was an air of doubt clouding Kerry's claims to being a morally superior Commander and Chief by virtue of his war service. Now we all know that these attacks against Kerry were false, libelous and distracting. But they worked. Their effect was to strip the Democratic Nominee of his one claim to moral superiority over Bush: he had actually fought in war and thus could responsibly manage the war in Iraq.<br /><br />Now the same is being played out in Western Sahara. In this case, for Polisario, their strongest suit is, and always has been, international law and human rights. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN's <a href="http://asvdh.net/english/?page_id=112">High Commissioner for Human Rights</a> and High Committee for Refugees, International Red Cross/Red Crescent and dozens of other NGOs (including a permanent presence of <a href="http://www.homelandonline.org/">English teachers from the US</a> and a Moroccan journalist) have all stayed in the Polisario controlled camps and never found any evidence supporting the claims now being launched by Morocco's surrogates. But that doesn't matter. Rove's tactics -- whether insinuating Sen John McCain had an African-American love child in 2000 or Kerry was a French-speaking effete with a trumped up war record in 2004 -- are based on alleging. It is the allegation that matters: placing doubt in the back of the mind.<br /><br />The flip-side of this tactic is to distract people from the reality. For a self proclaimed 'war president', Bush's war record was non-existent. That's why Rove went after Kerry's military service: to distract.<br /><br />The parallel with Morocco is quite telling. The world knows that Morocco's human rights record in Western Sahara is among, <a href="http://asvdh.net/english/?page_id=377">as Freedom House puts it</a>, the 'Worst of the Worst'. At home and in Western Sahara, Morocco has a long history of brutally repressing opposition, whether by 'disappearing' dissidents (in the days of King Hassan II) or imprisoning them en mass as the new king does with Islamists and Western Saharan nationalists.<br /><br />Year after year, report after report, it becomes clear and clearer that Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is one of the world's most neglected human rights situations in the world. And this is exactly why MACP is attacking Polisario on its human rights record. In reality, everyone knows that Polisario is very careful about its international image and has gone to great lengths to be transparent, even opening themselves up to attacks like the 2003 France Libertés incident.<br /><br />Meanwhile Morocco continues to prohibit free expression, movement and organization in Western Sahara, and repeatedly ejecting journalists from the territory who attempt to uncover these facts without supervision from the interior ministry.<br /><br />If Morocco is to sell the world on the idea that it should keep Western Sahara through autonomy, then it has to distract the world from its human rights record there. And the best way to achieve unilateral autonomy solution is to discredit Polisario in the eyes of Washington through Rove's masterful 'guilt by doubt' association.<br /><br />But will the AP and NYT send reporters to the occupied Western Sahara and the camps to see for themselves? Probably not.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-22662823389595168752008-05-24T20:31:00.000-07:002008-05-24T21:34:18.094-07:00Van Walsum: Nobody's fool<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00249/petervanwalsum_copy_249531a.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 250px;" src="http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00249/petervanwalsum_copy_249531a.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>If you thought things couldn't get much worse for the peace process in Western Sahara, then you haven't read the <a href="http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article1100332.ece/VN-gezant_overleg_is_schijn_">latest interview with Peter van Walsum</a>, the lead UN negotiator to the conflict.<br /><br />What's refreshing is that Van Walsum finally calls a spade a spade. The much hyped face-to-face talks in 2007 and 2008 -- the first since 2000 -- have been 'a mockery, a farce, a false game', he says, explaining that nobody believes in them, neither Morocco nor Polisario.<br /><br /><blockquote>'If I continue to sit here as a good boy and do what is expected of me then I will mediate in not four rounds, but eight, twelve or sixteen rounds. There is no solution, because the two main points of view of the parties are irreconcilable on the point about a referendum concerning independence. For Polisario that is essential and for Morocco it is unthinkable. You will never resolve that problem.'</blockquote><br /><br />Last month, Van Walsum jumped into some hot water when he pointed out the banal yet uncouth reality that unless France and the United States will it, a referendum on independence in Western Sahara is unrealistic. Morocco and its allies quickly affirmed the consequent, arguing that if independence is unrealistic, then autonomy must be realistic.<br /><br />Polisario's response was to claim that Van Walsum should not longer play a role; yet the liberation front has not yet said whether or not it will attend the unscheduled next round of negotiations.<br /><br />In the interview, Van Walsum seems unsure as to whether his tenure in Western Sahara is over, noting the deep displeasure of Polisario and Algeria. More interestingly, he also noted some tensions in the UN Secretariat<br /><br />Perhaps the most interesting observation to come from Van Walsum's new intereview is his belief that the UN Security Council should have used Chapter VII powers (ie, coercion) to stop Morocco's 1975 invasion of what was then the Spanish Sahara. Indeed, he notes that the Security Council treats the Chapter VI (ie, non-coercive) nature of its intervention in Western Sahara since 1988 as 'holy'. In other words, it's not just Morocco and Polisario who have 'red lines' in this conflict, but also Paris and Washington.<br /><br />In the NRC interview, he further clarified his position, which is clearly empathetic towards Western Sahara's right to independence: 'The moral dilemma is that Polisario is more on the right side than Morocco. But because the Security Council will never force Morocco into a referendum on independence, they actually choose for the status quo'. He then criticizes Polisario for choosing exile over autonomy.<br /><br />Though he could have just as easily redirected his frustration at France and the United States, who are not only blocking a solution in accordance with international law, they are also providing diplomatic cover to Morocco's forceful expansion of territory. Are not they as guilty, if not more, of prolonging the refugees misery as Polisario?<br /><br />Indeed, at the end of the article, he endorses the idea of the Security Council asking the parties to 'experiment' with autonomy. Such an approach, which clearly favors Morocco, would require the Security Council to use Chapter VII powers to make sure his autonomy experiment doesn't end up like West Papua or Eritrea.<br /><br />So this is the world we live in: In the same interview, a lead UN negotiator simultaneously acknowledges Western Sahara's right to independence and the illegality of Morocco's annexationist move. Only to conclude by suggesting that the Security Council -- in the name of realism! -- should force Western Sahara to accept, for a brief trial period, an illegal occupation.<br /><br />Well, such audacity is clearly Van Walsum's swan song. Before the UN Secretariat unceremoniously snatches the Western Sahara dossier from Van Walsum, our little-known Dutch diplomat is letting the world know that he's nobody's fool -- neither Morocco's, nor Polisario's, nor the United Nations'.<br /><br />It was a good 3 years, as long as you weren't a Sahrawi.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-70248187246375732452008-05-07T06:43:00.000-07:002008-05-07T07:17:09.271-07:00Alle's comments on 'Resolution 1813: Casus Belli? Apparently Not'<blockquote>[Alle] ... the meaning of the year-long extension is also that this was the last push within the UN for autonomy before the Bush admin moves out of office and that the US & France combined couldn't (or wouldn't) get any further than an oblique reference to realism and some non-binding praise for Morocco's plan, while self-determination is kept with zero change of wording. In that sense, it's a pretty comfortable place in which to dig in for Polisario and Algeria, compared to the alternatives. (Although of course much worse than c. 2004.)<br /><br />The point is that the US cannot now push the process further under this presidency, on the UN/intl law track. This forces Morocco to take the initiative itself, before the elections, if they don't want to gamble on the next president being prepared to go further than Bush did.<br /><br />The PJD recently called for the government to start implementing the autonomy initiative unilaterally; that is an interesting proposition, and perhaps the gov is also prepared to do something along those lines. Not sure it's a smart thing to do overall, though, since autonomy would then appear in all its messy reality, rather than remaining a 'daring' future prospect -- presumably it would also somewhat empower Sahrawis in the territories to organize/protest (= a free concession), or, if not, come off as a sham. So my bet is Morocco holds its ground and does nothing -- total stalemate until the end of the year.<br /><br />After that: P[olisario] & A[lgeria] have taken a bad beating, but Morocco's strategy has now -- absent some dramatic development -- run its course. And despite extremely favorable circumstances, and all this pushing, the gov won nothing except an escape route from the Baker plan. Autonomy was the major card up its sleeve, to be used just once for public effect. Now it is spent, and still, international legitimacy is not even on the horizon. So what now?</blockquote><br /><br />Thanks for the feedback. I think I was arguing the same claim (year long extension partially relates to US politics) though you've done a better job of clarifying and adding context (e.g., PJD).<br /><br />The problem with any Moroccan unilateralism is that there's no incentive for Rabat to implement autonomy unless France and the US are willing to make the dramatic move of recognizing Moroccan sovereignty. That is, from the Moroccan point of view, autonomy is a compromise, a step backwards, and not an inevitability. Indeed, the Moroccan regime sees autonomy as a liability given the growth of Berberism in the Rif and Draa regions. And it is no secret that some parties support autonomy in Western Sahara because they hope it will become a crack in the Makhzen system through which real political reform can be driven.<br /><br />So for Morocco to 'magnanimously' implement autonomy, there has to be some major reward for such 'compromise'. Would the Bush administration make such a move and recognize Moroccan sovereignty vis-à-vis an autonomous Western Sahara (I'm sure Sarko would)? Would anyone in the US care if the White House did? <br /><br />The major argument against supporting Moroccan unilateralism, for the White House, is that the UN establishment would not be too happy and Polisario would be left with no choice but to go back to war.<br /><br />Unilateral autonomy: that there is the real Casus Belli.<br /><br />There's obviously precedent for this, what with the Bush administration’s endorsement of Israeli unilateralism in Gaza and the West Bank wall, which is not a compromise but a solution pre-determined by realpolitik in the 1970s. The same could be said of Western Sahara.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />SWsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-12345268777418404132008-05-04T17:38:00.000-07:002008-05-04T17:52:11.572-07:00...Stop the Press! Polisario will not work with Van WalsumI spoke too soon! In <a href="http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2008/05/resolution-1813-casus-belli-apparently.html">my last post</a> I heavily criticised Polisario for not taking a tougher stance against Van Walsum's US-backed attack on self-determination ("And while the ship of self-determination is sinking, Algeria and Polisario re-arrange the deck chairs.)<br /><br />Today Polisario announced that it will no longer work with Van Walsum, the UN envoy to Western Sahara. Following an emergency jama'a, the front had this to say:<br /><blockquote>The bureau of the National Secretariat deemed the personal approach preached by Mr. Peter van Walsum, illegal, unjust and completely aligned to the thesis of the Moroccan colonial occupation whose objective is to confiscate the Saharawi people's inalienable rights to self-determination and independence. The bureau vigorously condemns, on behalf of POLISARIO Front, this approach and considers that Mr. Walsum has lost the confidence of the Saharawi people and thus can no more play a role in the ongoing process to decolonise Western Sahara. [... T]he Bureau solemnly reaffirms that POLISARIO Front will not accept today nor tomorrow to enter in a process that aims at negating the Saharawi people's inalienable and imprescriptible rights to self-determination and independence.</blockquote><br /><br />Are dems fightin' words?<br /><br />In light of this development, we might have to rethink why the Security Council gave MINURSO a 12-month extension rather than the normal six. Perhaps not only because of the change in the US administration come November, but also because there will be a job ad on the NY Craigslist tomorrow for a new Personal Envoy.<br /><br />And now we're all waiting for the other shoe to drop -- ie, what will Rabat do?sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-72452463713686528132008-05-03T11:23:00.000-07:002008-05-03T12:45:32.655-07:00Resolution 1813: Casus Belli? Apparently Not.<a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/people/petervw1.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/people/petervw1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><i>‘Negotiations, without the credible threat of force, are useless’</i><br />--Paraphrasing some dead white guy<br /><br />Peter Van Walsum, personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General to the festering, nearly 33-year-old conflict in Western Sahara, dropped the diplomatic equivalent of a nuclear bomb on international legality this week. The problem is, no one seemed to notice. <br /><br />In the lead-up to the Security Council’s now ritual extension of the Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) at the end of April, Van Walsum, whose credibility is supposed to rest on his impartiality, said that ‘an independent Western Sahara was not a realistic proposition’.<br /><br />Though Van Walsum’s sentiment was clearly at odds with the UN charter and the neutrality of the offices of the Secretariat, his realpolitik logic was quite impeccable. Not because Western Sahara does not have a right to independence or because it would constitute an unviable state; no, Van Walsum had another reason in mind. He simply noted there is ‘no pressure on Morocco to abandon its claim of sovereignty over the territory’. <br /><br />This has always been the rub when it comes to Western Sahara. As a former colony of Spain and a UN-recognised non-self-governing territory, the native people of Western Sahara ought to be afforded a vote on independence. Yet Western Sahara, since 1975, has been occupied by Morocco, a staunch -- one might say highly pliable, exceedingly acquiescent or pathetically submissive -- ally of France and the United States. And since France and the US hold the keys to MINURSO and any coercive UN diplomacy, Morocco has gotten its way in Western Sahara, plundering and colonizing Africa’s last colony in what is the most aggressive, unchecked expansion of territory since Israel took Gaza and the West Bank in 1967.<br /><br />Following Van Walsum’s dropping of the R-bomb (for realism), France and the United States charged full speed ahead with an effort to shove a pro-Morocco resolution down the Security Council’s throat. The crux of the matter was whether or not the term realism (i.e., deference to global U.S.-European hegemony before the law) should apply to the final status option of independence. With help from South Africa, a vital ally of Western Sahara holding the Council Presidency, this assault was somewhat repulsed and the term realism was affixed to the negotiations process rather than obliterating the option of independence. And as always, France would not accept increased human rights monitoring added to the Mission’s mandate, lest Morocco’s abuses become part of the official Security Council records in the Secretary-General’s reports. <br /><br /><br /><i>Finding ‘Comfort’</i><br /><br />As always, Polisario spun defeat into victory -- pointing towards the carnage, remarking how beautiful the smouldering husk of what is left of self-determination. <br /><br />The Western Saharan independence movement (if it still deserves that title) said it ‘is happy that in the resolution that it just adopted, the Security Council has decided, once again, to comfort and consecrate the international legality regarding the question of Western Sahara, and thus, the righteousness and fairness of the Saharawi cause’. Algeria, likewise, applauded the work of their ally South Africa in defending the right of 200,000 Sahrawis to cast a ballot. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the US adopted its most stridently pro-Moroccan language in the course of the Western Sahara conflict. Since 1975, for the most part, the US has avoided explicitly recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Instead, the US always fashioned itself a more moderate intermediary than France, whose historical baggage with Morocco and Algeria had predetermined its pro-Rabat position on Western Sahara. <br /><br />In the past, the US would offer tepid, ambiguous support for self-determination (i.e., without qualification) and, more wholeheartedly, negotiations between Morocco, Polisario and Algeria. Now, it seems that the US has given up pretending that it would ever throw the Morocco’s pseudo-democratic authoritarian regime to the wolves of democracy. As the deputy U.S. ambassador to the UN told reporters after the vote, ‘The best way to move forward, in our view, the realistic way to move forward, is to pursue a negotiated solution resulting in true autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty for the Polisario’.<br /><br />This was reaffirmed by the State Department in a press briefing on 1 May. Where in previous months, the US had simply adorned Morocco’s timid autonomy proposal with platitudes like ‘serious’ and ‘credible’, the Bush administration was now awarding its favourite proxy-torturer with a fait accompli in Western Sahara. <br /><br />When asked about Resolution 1813, ‘An independent Sahrawi state is not a realistic option. In our view, some form of autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is the only realistic way forward to resolve this longstanding conflict. We urge the parties to focus future discussions on a mutually-acceptable autonomy regime that is consistent with the aspirations of the people of Western Sahara’. And what if the aspirations of the Sahrawis are for independence? Well, one can only aspire for so much in the face of ‘realism’.<br /><br />We will have to wait and see, but this move by the US probably also terminated the Bush administration’s brief fling with Algeria, consecrated shortly after 9/11 but irreparably undone in 2004. In 2003, the US had asked Algeria to use its influence on Polisario to accept the second Baker Plan. When Algeria delivered, the Bush administration turned around and supported Morocco’s rejection of the Baker Plan in 2004. <br /><br />And while the ship of self-determination is sinking, Algeria and Polisario re-arrange the deck chairs.<br /><br /><i>Endgame or end of the endgame?</i><br /><br />Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Resolution 1813 is that it extended MINURSO’s mandate for an entire year. In more recent renewals of the Mission, the Council had opted for four to six month intervals, enough time for the diplomatic process to cycle through once or twice (especially the shuttle diplomacy of the late Baker period, 2000-4, and the early Van Walsum period, 2005-7). <br /><br />With the parties further apart than ever, and with Rabat more assured of its position than at any other time, why would the Council choose a long extension rather than a short one? Is it because Van Walsum (or, as people said in 2005 when he was nominated, Van Who-sum?) needs a year to work his realism magic? <br /><br />Unlikely. Morocco will demand, in the name of realism, that Polisario first abandon the right to independence. Polisario, on the other hand, will demand that Morocco, in the name of realism, first accept the right to self-determination.<br /><br />Which only goes to show that one person’s realism, is another person’s fantasy.<br /><br />The reason the Security Council gave itself such latitude probably has to do with the elections in the US. Under current conditions, Polisario and Algeria will probably keep their hands folded and hope for another Clinton presidency, or better yet Obama. <br /><br />Indeed, the current phase of the conflict is not unlike just five years ago, when the table were turned on Morocco. Algeria and Polisario had accepted the Second Baker Plan and Morocco had rejected it. Instead of creating more momentum in the peace process, it came to a dead halt, and Morocco stalled until Baker got the message in April 2004. <br /><br />Now it’s the same way, except Morocco will be the one gloating and Polisario and Algeria will be the ones doing the stalling until more favourable conditions present themselves. And the only major change on the horizon isn’t until November. Thus MINURSO gets a yearlong lease on life.<br /><br />What is also clear is that all talk of endgames should cease. If ever there was a moment for Polisario to withdrawal from the peace process and mobilize its forces, the time has passed. Morocco has apparently learned to keep overt repression of Sahrawis to a minimum -- just below the obtuse level of most international media. Everyone -- the Security Council, Morocco, Algeria and Polisario -- will tolerate an endless peace process. The status quo is, for better and worst, the least bad option for all -- except the Sahrawis.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-16049893213216382512007-06-14T08:30:00.000-07:002007-06-14T08:41:33.797-07:00Kurt Waldheim, Secretary-General who allowed Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara, deadThe late, former UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, best known for his participation in the Holocaust, was also heavily involved in the 1975 Moroccan seizure of then Spanish -- now Western -- Sahara. Though the UN was created, in part, to prevent the aquistion of territory by foce, <a href="http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/12asahara">Waldheim's 'diplomatic' passivisity during the 1975 crisis</a> allowed Morocco to grab Spanish Sahara before the native people could vote on independence. Just one of many crimes, like East Timor, that should have landed him in the Hague years ago. I suspect that few tears will be shed in the Sahrawi refugee camps for the late Mr Waldheim.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-12934394480886752512007-03-22T06:20:00.000-07:002007-03-22T06:25:31.640-07:00Vreeland exposedThe New York Times published a correction today regarding former Ambassador Frederick Vreeland's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/opinion/03vreeland.html">3 March pro-Moroccan hackery</a> on the op-ed pages of the NYT and IHT.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Editors' Note </strong>: An Op-Ed article on March 3, about Morocco’s proposal for an autonomous Western Sahara, should have more fully disclosed the background of the author, Frederick Vreeland. Mr. Vreeland, a former American ambassador to Morocco, is also the chairman of a solar-energy company that has had contracts with the Moroccan government.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Is anyone surprised that Morocco can't find an honest person to make their arguments for them?sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-79596078509491133212007-03-07T12:05:00.000-08:002007-03-07T12:18:44.405-08:00Spain to open genocide prosecution against Moroccan actions in Western Sahara<img width=200 style="margin: 0pt 5px 5px 0pt; float: left" src="http://press.arabandalucia.com/images/zapatero_mohamed6.jpg">Just as Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is making an official visit to Morocco, Spain’s Office of the Public Prosecutor accused Morocco of genocide in Western Sahara.<br /><br />El Mundo has reported that the famous prosecutor Balthasar Garzón has been instructed to start legal process ‘against the Moroccan officials and military officers for genocide, torture, kidnapping and disappearances practiced by the Kingdom of Morocco against the Sahrawi people’. Thirty-two high Moroccan officials have been named.<br /><br />Several Sahrawi human rights organizations and solidarity groups in Spain apparently called for the proceedings under international law. Most of cases involved occurred between 1975 and 1980. <br /><br />El Mundo wrote, ‘Between the 32 defendants are several generals and leading figures in Moroccan politics in last the three decades’. Included is Driss Basri, former Interior Minister outseted by King Mohammed VI in 1999 shortly after the latter ascended to the throne. Sahrawis call the exiled Basri ‘Butcher Basri’. He now lives in Paris.<br /><br />The case also names several former and serving officials in the numerous security bodies. The accused include some of the most powerful figures in Morocco’s <i>makhzan</i> (the royal-state apparatus of control): <br />• Hamidou Lanigi, ousted head of National Security, leading member of the Old Guard<br />• Yasine Mansouri, a royal advisor and intelligence czar<br />• Abdellaj Kadiri, former DST director<br />• Abdelaziz Benani, Chief of Staff for Morocco’s armed forces<br />• Housni Bensliman, head of the Royal Gendarmerie<br />• Ali Benhima, National Security Chief in the Moroccan occupied Western Sahara<br />• Abdelhafid Benhachem, Basri’s former aid<br /><br />The indictment claims that ‘from the 31 of October of 1975 to the present, the Moroccan Army has exerted a permanent violence against the Sahrawi people, first in a predatory war that forced a large part of the Sahrawi population, more than 40,000 people, to flee to the desert, being persecuted and being bombed by the aggressor’s forces with napalm, white phosphorus and cluster bombs, being thrown to the void from helicopters, creating a state of terror and persecution … that last to the present time’. <br /><br />The dossier apparently contains a list of 206 Sahrawis who ‘disappeared’ at the hands of Moroccan security agents. It adds ‘the disappearance of thousands of people, of who at least 526 Sahrawi, still today, remain in that situation, without their relatives having some knowledge of their whereabouts, and the Moroccan state’s denial of further information to them’. <br /><br />Sources:<br />El Mundo (March 6, 2007), ‘La Fiscalía pide a Garzón que investigue a altos cargos marroquíes por genocidio; Informa a favor de la admisión de una querella por los delitos cometidos contra cientos de saharauis desaparecidos, la mayoría de ellos de nacionalidad española / Entre los acusados está el ex director general de la Seguridad Nacional de Rabat’ by Manuel Marraco, p16.<br /><br />AFP-Spanish, ‘Sahara: fiscal español pide instruir demanda por genocidio contra marroquíes’<br />(March 6, 2007)sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-435229960948109982007-02-06T13:30:00.000-08:002007-02-18T05:07:09.278-08:00Interesting Comment on 'Autonomy? How about a confederation?'Here is an interesting comment on my last post, <a href="http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2007/01/autonomy-how-about-confederation_23.html">Autonomy? How about a confederation?</a> from an anonymous source:<br /><br />From <a href="http://w-sahara.blogspot.com/">'arre'</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Any solution is illegal, thus probably unrealizable, unless confirmed through a vote with independence as the other major option on the ballot, i.e. an exercise of effective self-determination. I just cannot see a credible way around that within the UN framework. But if that can be arranged, autonomy is clearly an interesting option. Both full independence and full annexation to Morocco holds a potential for disruptive crisis and violence: <br /><br />* INDEPENDENCE could in a worst-case scenario bring about a failed state if it lacks foreign material/security support and/or as a result of Moroccan subversion (like in East Timor). That W. Sahara would end up as an Algerian satellite is of course also possible, but (a) I can’t see why that is any worse for the West than a Moroccan annexed territory, if Algeria stays reasonably stable and (b) a Sahrawi state would find Morocco both willing and capable to help break any over-reliance on Algeria, for nationalist and strategic reasons. <br /><br />* ANNEXATION, if forced through w/o Sahrawi grievances seriously addressed, and with hopes for independence not totally extinguished, could lead to future flare-ups when Morocco is weak, and/or a resurgent post-Polisario Sahrawi nationalism turning Islamist. (There's serious potential for that in the Mauritania/W. Sahara Moorish areas.) Also, flooding the desert with ~15,000 armed and experienced Polisario fighters who suddenly lost their raison d'être, source of income and status, while also being more or less cut off from the traditional tribal networks that could contain their activities, doesn't bode well for stability in the area. It is utterly naïve to expect they will all meekly accept to go live on the dole in "Moroccan Sahara" after the humiliation of defeat. Consider the insecurity projected by the GSPC with only a few hundred men in the Algerian Sahara, and how smugglers have chipped away at stability and sovereignty in these areas, and expect tenfold desert unrest if Polisario is broken up forcibly. With this in mind, if autonomy can be accepted in a non-flawed self determination referendum, where it visibly beats independence as an option, then it is clearly an intriguing possibility. <br /><br />The main problems I think are what Driss Basri (for his own self-interested reasons) pointed out: that Sahrawi autonomy risks feeding into Moroccan separatisms (mainly Rif), and Morocco really cannot afford to emasculate the central state if it wants to continue reforming/developing. Autonomies in these kinds of underdeveloped areas invariably turn into inefficient, money-gobbling and reform-resistant local fiefdoms for tribal, central gov-blessed apparatchiks. (That will happen in W. Sahara too, and the Khelli Henna crowd is a good example of the kind of self-serving elite which will run it, if indeed anything is left for them to run after the Moroccan state’s lawyers have had their say post-independence.) The other problem, which Basri underlined, is that permanent autonomy could very well in the long run serve to strengthen Sahrawi particularity and feed into resurgent nationalism in times of crisis, even if support for independence will dip immediately after autonomy is granted. This is particularly so if the way it is brought about is not 100% acceptable, i.e. with a proper UN-sponsored vote, so as to kill off the Polisario discourse once and for all. Then the whole conflict would bubble up again, only more intractable, with the clear-cut colonial border and popular sovereignty principles long gone, leaving only historical distrust, ethnic suspicion and dolchstoss myths in their place. <br /><br />That would really be the worst of two worlds, and if autonomy is to be attempted, to avoid this it needs: (a) Foreign backing to resist creeping Moroccan subversion. Achievable, Spain is perfect for the part. (b) Foreign money to sweeten transition. Achieveable, and necessary also in the case of independence or integration etc. (c) Large enough initial powers to be able to present it as a no-losers compromise. Not sure Morocco is ready to do this, we’ll know in April inshallah. (Thought it won’t be anything near your “confederation” suggestion.) (d) To be coupled with a discourse or principles that explicitly sets W. Sahara out as a special case, so that the Rif (or the Kabylie in Algeria for that matter) will not follow by demanding same, starting a vicious spiral. Achievable, just package it right. (e) Self-determination, some form of free and fair referendum on independence or autonomy, to demonstrate that the conflict is over and that there are no issues of principle to invoke against Moroccan sovereignty – come what may, the conflict is over. Some CORCAS shenanigan simply will not do, but here I fear Morocco simply cannot deliver. The MAP recently sent out something about how the support of CORCAS was tantamount to self-determination … it read very much like a trial balloon. If that is the way they’re going to go about the self-determination issue, someone needs to kill the autonomy plan quickly, because that will undermine not only Western Sahara but Morocco too. </blockquote>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1169604242352899002007-01-23T17:53:00.001-08:002007-01-25T16:22:54.916-08:00Autonomy? How about a confederation?Autonomy for Western Sahara is all the rage. Moroccan officials and parties can’t stop lauding King Mohammed VI’s autonomy project. After thirty years of conflict with the Polisario independence movement, Rabat seems to think that it has found the magic wand. Just grant Western Sahara autonomy and all their problems will vanish. <br /><br />The Moroccan elite seems to think they can solve the Western Sahara dispute unilaterally without having to sweat the little details -- you know, a twenty-year old bilateral peace process with Polisario, self-determination and the right to vote on independence, decolonization, international law and Security Council resolutions and the fait accompli of Western Saharan nationalism.<br /><br />But Paris and Washington can’t wait to be done with Western Sahara, so they’re happy to encourage Rabat. The other option, coercing Rabat into accepting the international consensus, the 2003 Baker Plan, is not an option. When it comes to Morocco, its all carrots.<br /><br />The other problem is that no one really knows what Morocco’s ‘autonomy’ means for Western Sahara because Morocco has yet to produce any details for a specific proposal. Forget the nitty-gritty; we don’t even know the broad generalities. Who will defend the territory, what happens to the settlers, and who can dissolve the government? Does autonomy mean, in reality, just special regional status, or does it mean that Western Sahara will enjoy the same freedoms Catalonia now has from Madrid? Despite these vexing, superficial and preliminary questions, which have yet even been discussed in open, autonomy presses on.<br /><br />From Rabat to Madrid to Paris to Washington, everyone seems to think autonomy's the natural solution. It’s a compromise! Morocco gets a little and Polisario gets a little. Morocco’s ‘sovereign rights’ are respected, as are Polisario’s national rights. The tricky part is working out the details. Oh, and that pesky right of self-determination that has kept Western Sahara on the United Nations agenda since 1964.<br /><br />But is autonomy the only compromise? There’s division, of course, but who wants an even smaller, less stable and less secure -- and thus less independent -- Western Sahara? And does Morocco get Al-Ayoun, what many Sahrawis consider their capital? And Smara, their spiritual capital? No, division is not a good option.<br /><br />So what’s left? Federalism, but which requires a massive overhaul of the Moroccan constitution? So then Moroccan voters would have a veto over the Western Sahara peace process. And even the loosest federalism still makes Western Sahara just another region of Morocco. That's not very attractive to Polisario.<br /><br />There is another option, one that has been largely ignored. That is confederation: Western Sahara would become largely independent, with its own government and military. In exchange for this freedom, Western Sahara would exist as a part of Morocco’s internationally recognized ‘historical territory’, the Moroccan flag will fly alongside the flag of Western Sahara, and the King of Morocco will approve the Prime Minister of Western Sahara in much the same ceremonial fashion as in the United Kingdom. Morocco gets a little, and Polisario gets a little. Morocco agrees to never invade or interfere with the government of Western Sahara and Polisairo agrees never to secede and to always recognize their deep historical relations. This agreement can be established through a treaty between Polisario and Morocco; no messy constitutional overhaul necessary. We all live happily ever after -- once this is approved through self-determination. <br /><br />Indeed, the late, great King Hassan II of Morocco once said something to the effect of, leave the stamp and the flag Moroccan, and everything else is negotiable. But the problem is that Mohammed VI isn’t his father … yet.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1162644741285676922006-11-04T04:46:00.000-08:002006-11-14T00:02:04.050-08:00Rabat’s man in the White House<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123075/2112264/2113386/050217_Assess_Abrams.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 100px;" src="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123075/2112264/2113386/050217_Assess_Abrams.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Polisario officials have long suspected that <a href=”http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969”>Elliot Abrams</a>, head of Near Eastern-North African Affairs in the White House’s National Security Council, is Morocco’s most ardent supporter in the George W Bush administration. Indeed, one has to wonder how it is that former UN envoy to Western Sahara, James Baker, a close ally of the second Bush administration, was not supported by the White House in his efforts to find a resolution to the Morocco-Polisario conflict.<br /><br /><a href=”http://www.lematin.ma/Journal/Article.asp?id=natio&ida=65730”>Mr Abram’s sympathy for Morocco’s position on Western Sahara was surely revealed when he opted to meet Khalihenna Ould Rachid in early October.</a> <br /><br />Mr Abrams is reportedly a right-wing ‘idealist’, a kind of proto-Neoconservative whose knee-jerk antipathy towards leftist and grassroots movements has made him an apologist for Central American death squads, Israeli war crimes and dictators of all sorts. Those of us old enough to remember will recall that Mr Abrams was one of the Reagan administration officials convicted in relation to the Iran-Contra affair: he had lied to the U.S. congress about his role in raising money for terrorists who raped and murdered thousands in Nicaragua. (Abrams was pardoned by the first Bush, G.H.W.)<br /><br />True to form, Mr Abrams probably carries some long-standing hatred for Polisario as a pseudo Leftist front. It should be recalled that the Reagan administration helped Morocco fight Polisario in the 1980s, through training and military aid. If not for such aid (combined with funding from Saudi Arabia and French support), Morocco would have lost Western Sahara to Polisario by 1980-1981.<br /><br />In exchange for help in Western Sahara, King Hassan’s Morocco proved to be one of the United States’ closest Cold-War allies: aiding US interventions in Africa as a part of the ‘Safari Club’, housing one the largest regional CIA stations, or as a backchannel for Israeli-Arab dialog. This was, of course, when the Moroccan regime was thoroughly repressing all forms of democratic opposition (massacring demonstrators in the streets, 'disappearing' opposition in numerous secret prisons, ramming IMF economic 'structural adjustment' down the population's throat to pay for the Sahara war). This was when Morocco's security services perfected their torture techniques that we find so handy now. Yes, King Hassan might have been a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he was <i>our</i> son-of-a-bitch!<br /><br />How history repeats itself: It should also be noted that Morocco is now a key partner in the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’. Google CIA-Morocco-torture and see what you get. The point is, no need to fuss over 200,000 nomads in Western Sahara when King Mohammed VI is willing to torture <a href=“http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1664612,00.html”>‘terrorists’</a> far from the offices of Senator John McCain.<br /><br />But what does Mr Abram’s have to do with the Western Sahara peace process? Well, he probably killed it.<br /><br />From 1997 to 2004, Baker was the lead negotiator in Western Sahara. In 2003, he presented a plan to hold a referendum on independence, autonomy or integration following a four-year autonomous transitional period. While Polisario accepted the plan, Morocco rejected it. Baker felt -- and was backed by the Security Council on this point -- that the plan was 'optimal', as it balanced the interests of all the parties against the dictates of international legality. That is, it offered self-determination (i.e., a vote on independence), but under conditions highly favourable to Morocco (i.e., Moroccan settlers living in the occupied Western Sahara could vote as well, thus tilting the outcome in Morocco’s favour -- towards integration). <br /><br />Morocco’s rejection of this plan was stunning, and yet the Bush administration did not step-up pressure on Rabat for peace. Instead, the same month Baker resigned out of <a href=”http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/printable/transcript_sahara_print.html”>frustration</a> (June 2004), the US government rewarded Morocco with a bilateral Free Trade Agreement and designated Morocco a ‘major Non-NATO ally’, meaning that our defence commitment to Morocco is the same as to Australia or Japan.<br /><br />The second Bush administration sacrificed a long-term interest -- peace in Western Sahara -- for a short term one -- letting someone else torture our 'suspected terrorists'. <br /><br />In the meantime, Mr Abrams has decided to follow Rabat's line on Western Sahara, which is a lot like Israel in Gaza: Unilateral implementation of a plan in form but with little actual change on the ground. (As we see in Gaza, things are really much worse following 'disengagement'.) Morocco is hoping to convince the international community that it can implement an 'autonomy' scheme in Western Sahara and that will be the end of it: the Western Saharans will pick up their own garbage while King Mohammed's regime gets rich off the fish. Mr Abrams apparently thinks this is a good idea, and thus he met with Mr Rachid. <br /><br /><a href=”http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2006/08/rabats-man-in-laayoune.html”>As I’ve written elsewhere, Mr Rachid is the Moroccan government’s front-man for its long-awaited ‘autonomy plan’. It’s worth noting that Mr Rachid has little legitimacy among most Western Saharans, who he claims to now represent in some fashion. This is even acknowledged in the non-partisan Moroccan press.</a> <br /><br />It would seem that Mr Abrams is more interested in endorsing Morocco’s illegal occupation of Western Sahara than supporting Baker’s honest efforts to achieve peace. In the long run, when Western Sahara eventually explodes, everyone will see how utterly stupid the Neocon’s imaginare is, serving as another small example -- along with Iraq, Darfur, Lebanon, Gaza -- of how the Bush administration’s Near East policies have done a much better job of creating violence and instability than ending it. But when death squads are tearing Western Sahara appart, I'm sure Mr Abrams will be there to justify it.<br /><br />But what’s really worse: Abram’s cynicism or the fact that Baker deferred to it?sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1162312963245449282006-10-31T08:33:00.000-08:002006-10-31T08:42:43.246-08:00Reply to Karim #2Two quick poitns:<br /><br />Karim Said, "...parallels between Palestinians and Sahrawi are not accurate. Israeli want Palestinians out of those lands, not to mention restriction of movement etc..."<br /><br />My comparison was at the level of <i>rights</i>, not the details of each case. Again, a people do not lose rights depending on who represents them or who they are allied with, whether its the right of return for Palestinians or the right of self-determination for native Western Saharans. Algeria's relation to the conflict at the level of rights is a non-sequitur. That was my point.<br /><br />Secondly, Karim said, "What's relevant is the Al-morabitun were based in Marrakech. That's what gives them a Moroccan character."<br /><br />They also had capitals in Timbuktu and Spain. Does that make them Malian and Spanish? And what is the direct relation between Mawlay Idriss, the founder of Morocco, and al-Murabitun beside geographical coincidence? The ultimate point, however, is that one can use history to justify anything. That's why the international practice of decolonization stuck to the borders drawn by colonialism. Otherwise, irredentism would lead to endless conflict, like we're seeing in Western Sahara.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />SWsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1161346590962935212006-10-20T04:28:00.000-07:002006-12-16T12:24:06.066-08:00Polisario and Algeria & What is a Sahrawi?: Comments on 'Karim's' commentsI received an anonymous and constructive comment from a Moroccan named 'Karim' on my post <a href="http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2006/06/drawing-dissent.html">Drawing Dissent</a> (he also left a rather negative comment on my re-post <a href="http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2006/10/morocco-narco-state.html">Morocco: Narco-state?</a>, which doesn't really warrant a response.)<br /><br />Here's Karim's comment:<br /><br /><blockquote>Isn't the Alaoutite dynasty from Tafilat, basically the Sahara?<br /><br />They are sahrawi, just not from the same tribes as the ones they are fighting now.<br /><br />The Sahrawi should first disassociate themselves from the military Algerian regime that caused the brutal Algerian civil war in which countless people were slaughtered.<br /><br />Sahrawi should understand that the Moroccan government abuses everyone not just them. <br /><br />As a Moroccan, I will protest abuses by the oppressive Moroccan gov against the Sahrawi people but I can not stand with polisario when it gets backing from an equally oppressive regime in Algeria.<br /><br />Is there any Sahrawi in this blog that I can discuss this issue with in a civil manner? </blockquote><br /><br />I'm not Sahrawi but I do like talking about this issue.<br /><br />I do agree that Polisario (and Western Saharan nationalism generally) should distance itself from Algeria given the nature of the regime in Algiers. Being associated with Algeria often does Polisario more harm than good. There are few worse authoritarian regimes than the Algerian one, which is responsible for thousands of disappearances and state murders.<br /><br />However, politics can not diminish rights. No matter who Polisario works with -- Algeria, Cuba or other despots -- does not change the fact that the native Western Saharans have a right to self-determination.<br /><br />Do the Palestinians forfeit their rights because they're supported by Saudi Arabia or Iran? No, of course not. The conflict is one of human rights, self-determination, and beligerent occupation, corrupted by politics, both regional and international.<br /><br />Secondly, I disagree with Karim's definition of Sahrawi. First, the Tafilalt is not the Sahara, as in Western Sahara, it's southeast Morocco -- today Rissani-Erfoud region -- where the great trans-Saharan trading post Sijilmasa was located. <br /><br />Though the term Sahrawi is contested by many Moroccan, the general consensus, which the Moroccan government recognizes, is that a Sahrawi tribe is one of the major groups (confederations, tribes, fractions) listed on the 1974 Spanish Sahara Census (i.e., the Rgaybat al-Sharq, Rgaybat al-Sahil, Ait al-Hasan, Izargiyyin, al-Arusiyyin, Awlad Dlim, etc.). In participating with the UN referendum effort in the 1990s, the Moroccan government agreed that these constitute the native tribes of Western Sahara.<br /><br />By Karim's reasoning, Tuaregs from Mali, Algeria and Niger, who live in the Sahara (generally) are as 'Sahrawi' as the Sahrawis of Western Sahara.<br /><br />Like many Moroccans, Karim refuses to aknowledge that the term Sahrawi has gained a new meaning, one with nationalist connotations that transcends blood and place of birth. Words change and gain new meanings. The word Sahrawi does not mean what it did when the 'Alawis came to power in the 1600s.<br /><br />Another problem with Karim's arguement is how far back to take these historical examples. One could then argue that, because of the Almoravids, Morocco belongs to Mauritania.<br /><br />As a member of the United Nations, Morocco has an obligation to uphold the UN Chater and obey international law (as does Algeria). If Morocco doesn't like that, and wants to justify its occupation and colonization of Western Sahara because some tyrant stole slaves from Mauritania two hundred years ago, then they should leave the UN.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />SWsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1157408776907750312006-09-04T14:31:00.000-07:002006-09-12T21:45:47.616-07:00'A more substantial Security Council resolution on Western Sahara'There was an interesting exchange of letters between UN Secretary-General Annan and the President of the Security Council at the end of June. <br /><br />In a June 26 letter to the Security Council, lame-duck Annan noted that its last resolution on Western Sahara, extending the mandate to the end of October, the Council "did not refer to my recommendations, except the one concerning the extension of the mandate of United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) for a further period of six months."<br /><br />Annan then noted, "The [April] resolution was adopted unanimously, but most of the members of the Council who made a statement after the vote expressed the hope ... that at the next mandate renewal in October the Council would not need to content itself again with a purely technical rollover" of the UN mission in Western Sahara (MINURSO).<br /><br />Following the April 2004 "technical rollover" of MINURSO, US representative to the United Nations John Bolton issued <a href="http://www.un.int/usa/06_097.htm">a statement</a> that said, "The United States has voted in favor of this resolution in the hope that all parties will use the next six months to make real progress toward reaching a mutually acceptable solution [...] in a manner consistent with the principle of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara." He then added, "We recognize MINURSO's important role in these efforts, yet must continually monitor the ability of the mission to carry out its mandated tasks, taking into account limited peacekeeping resources." <br /><br />Since 1991, MINURSO has been on the ground, first and foremost, to organize a referendum on self-determination for the native Sahrawi people of Western Sahara. The Mission's official name in English is the UN Mission for <i>the</i> Referendum in Western Sahara. For <a href=”http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm”> non-self-governing territories</a> like Western Sahara, self-determination -- defined by sixty years of decolonization, the General Assembly, the Security Council and even the Secretary-General -- means affording the native people a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted to be independent. <br /><br />The problem is that Morocco has rejected any attempt or proposal that would offer Western Sahara a vote on independence. Or in the words of their Foreign Minister, Mohammed Benaissa, a referendum is “obsolete” and “inapplicable.” <br /><br />The UN can not force the people of Western Sahara to give up that right, but the Security Council (i.e., France and the United States) has made it clear that they will not force Morocco to participate in -- or accept the outcome of -- a vote on independence. <br /><br />So what's the UN to do? Its mission in Western Sahara exists to hold a vote on independence that Morocco won't allow. The Security Council is the only body that can force Morocco to do anything, but they will not even press Rabat verbally -- not even when Morocco welcomed former lead negotiator James Baker's resignation in 2004. Thus the Mission in Western Sahara can not carry out its mandate. Therefore, Bolton's statement -- "[the US government] must continually monitor the ability of the mission to carry out its mandated tasks, taking into account limited peacekeeping resources" -- seems more ominous.<br /><br />Now what can Bolton really do? Well, a lot actually. He can veto MINURSO, and he doesn't need French approval for that. <br /><br />Responding to Annan's letter, the President of the Security Council said they had taken note of Annan's "suggestion that the members of the Security Council use the next four months to prepare for a more substantial resolution on the situation concerning Western Sahara." <br /><br />The shape of that resolution will depend greatly on the result of the Secretary-General's personal envoy, Peter Van Walsum, <a href="http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/politics/moroccan_pm_receives6417/view">who is currently visiting the parties.</a><br /><br />It is highly unlikely that Morocco will acquiesce to self-determination, so Bolton's cost-cutting credentials will be put to the test in October, when MINURSO's mandate expires for, perhaps, the last time.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1155071620653815192006-08-08T14:07:00.000-07:002006-08-08T14:46:09.953-07:00Rabat's man in Laayoune<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.lagazettedumaroc.com/imgs/imgs_ar/9955_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 100px;" src="http://www.lagazettedumaroc.com/imgs/imgs_ar/9955_1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/article.php3?id_article=8826">‘The Courage’ of the Twenty-Fifth Hour</a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Le Journal Hebdomadaire</span><br />[Unofficial Translation by Sahara Watch]<br /><br />“Hassan II bludgeoned and never listened to the Sahrawis.” “Mohammed VI had courage to repair the original sin and the most serious error of Morocco in this conflict: the refusal to involve the Sahrawis in the solution of their problem.” “The kingdom of the Seventies was unable to answer the demands of Sahrawis and to accept an autonomy worthy of the name autonomy. The radical change is that Mohammed VI has engaged autonomy and entrusts the realization of it to the principal interested party, the Sahrawis.”<br /><br />Who makes these remarks is none other than Khalli Henna Ould Errachid, named president of the Royal Advisory Council for Saharan Affairs (CORCAS) [1]. <br /><br />Obviously, ingratitude is the child of generosity. <br /><br />Recall: Who was the true mentor of this man? Who made him anonymous? Driss Basri [2], and this is not a secret. Who was his benefactor? Who gave him favors, licenses of all kinds, privileges and other preferential treatment that enabled him to become the head of a colossal fortune? Who if not Hassan II! Who named him Minister of Saharan Affairs, sitting all those years in the Parliament, etc, etc? Always Hassan II.<br /><br />Today, one nails the father to the post to earn favor with the son. <span style="font-style: italic;">Allah yansar min sbah!</span> What an indecency! And tomorrow? For sure the dead have wide backs, making it possible for more than the Mata-Moors and Tartarin de Tarascon to play.<br /><br />Questions:<br /><br />Why didn't Mr. Khelli Hanna Ould Errachid protest during the time of Hassan II and Basri?<br /><br />Why did he not say publicly at that time -- like he does today -- that Hassan II “bludgeoned and never listened to the Sahrawis”?<br /><br />Why he did not publicly denounce during the time of Hassan that “the original sin and the most serious error of Morocco in this conflict was its refusal to involved the Sahrawis in the solution to their problem?” like a clarion call, and, also, in a French daily newspaper?<br /><br />Mr Khelli Hanna Ould Errachid is a Sahrawi of the tribe of Rgaybat [3], and isn't it for this reason that the late king had placed him at the head of the Ministry of Saharan Affairs?<br /><br />This is to say, he is as responsible for the “bludgeoning” of his fellow-citizens as those whom he accuses today. It is to also say that he is fully implicated in “the original sin” and “the most serious error made by Morocco.” In the Saharan provinces [4] Mr. Khalli's aura is not of holiness, especially with the [Sahrawi] generations born after the Green March [5], who reproach him for having been in the pay of the Makhzan [6], which made him rich, etc, etc.<br /><br />Today Mr. Ould Errachid flatters the son as he had flattered the father. A mindless sycophancy that moreover leads him to affirm that “the radical change is that Mohammed VI has engaged in autonomy and entrusts the realization of it to the principal interested party, the Sahrawis.”<br /><br />Mr. Ould Errachid definitely has a very selective memory at the very least. So he “forgets” that it was Hassan II who was the initiator of this idea of autonomy, invoking the model of German Lander! Just as he hides another truth, namely that it is the same Hassan II who created CORCAS, which is, moreover, nothing more than an assembly of tribal notables… We are thus far from a really representative institution for the simple reason that it does not result from the ballot box.<br /><br />It is not a question of white washing the late monarch, but only to dot the i’s and to demystify the “courage” of the twenty-fifth hour, something to be wary of, a turn-coat to the last breath, a master of the art.<br /><br />http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/article.php3?id_article=8826<br /><br />[1] - King Hassan’s Interior Minister and right hand man. Called “Butcher Basri” by Western Saharan nationalists because he disappeared over 500 of them, and “Mr. 99%” by Moroccans for fixing elections.<br />[2] - Conseil royal consultatif des affaires sahariennes, a body with no ‘autonomous’ governing powers<br />[3] - Actually, Rgaybat al-sahil - Thalat, significant because this is same tribe and tribal sub-fraction as Polisario founder El-Ouali<br />[4] - i.e., Western Sahara<br />[5] - i.e., the 1975 Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara<br />[6] - Makhzan : the centuries old system of institutions and appointed clients that enable direct monarchical control in Morocco, from the village to the army, now riddled with corruption and cronyism.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1150747464708069892006-06-19T12:13:00.000-07:002007-01-17T18:37:03.803-08:00Drawing DissentI thought I would repost some of the more interesting political cartoons available at <a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.wsahara.net">wsahara.net </a>(<a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.wsahara.net/cartoons.html">cartoons</a> and <a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.wsahara.net/cartoonsarchives.html">cartoon archive</a>):<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.wsahara.net/images/corcas1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.wsahara.net/images/corcas1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />The first is an interesting commentary on Morocco's 'autonomy' project. It shows Khallihenna (Ould Rachid) trying to trap the bird of peace into a CORCAS box with a Moroccan label on it. CORCAS is Morocco's royal advisory council for Saharan affairs and Khallihenna is the chair. He's reportedly in charge of getting Morocco's autonomy project off the ground, but according to this cartoon he's ruining the chances for peace.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.wsahara.net/images/kabaliya.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.wsahara.net/images/kabaliya.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The second one is -- I think -- saying that Morocco is using 'tribalism' (the match, let me know if I've mis-translated) to set fire to Western Sahara (the box of matches). This could be a reference to Morocco's cynical use of Khatt Al-Shahid (Polisario reform movement) communiques, though Khatt Al-Shahid is pro-independence -- i.e., more Polisario than Polisario. It could also be reference to Moroccan manipulation of intra-tribal factionalism in Polisario's elite leadership (i.e., between members of the Rgaybat Al-Sharq tribal confederation) or inter-tribal tensions between the other tribes (e.g., Tiknah, Rgaybat Al-Sahil and Awlad Dulaym) versus the Rgaybat Al-Sharq.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.wsahara.net/images/poldisas.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 400px;" src="http://www.wsahara.net/images/poldisas.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />Another commentary on Khallihenna, referencing his previous work with PUNS, the Party for Sahrawi National Unity created by Spain in the 1970s to counter Polisario. When Spain left in 1975/1976, most of PUNS joined Polisario. Before November 1975, Khallihenna even made some speeches defending independence. Now he works for Morocco to legitimize another occupation through CORCAS.<br /><br />S-W<br /><a href="http://www.wsahara.net"><span class="down" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);"></span></a>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1149898822172719192006-06-09T17:19:00.000-07:002006-09-26T10:59:18.276-07:00Haidar for President?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1804/1885/1600/haidar.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1804/1885/320/haidar.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The Western Sahara issue is drowning in a sea of obscurity. If the Western Saharan independence movement doesn't do something dramatic soon, the whole situation could deteriorate into open war, terror and counter-terror. Then the independence movement will splinter into factions and Morocco will win.<br /><br />The Western Saharan independence movement -- led by Polisario but not limited to it -- can't afford to resume armed struggle. Such a move would de-legitimize them in the eyes of many, even if they and their supporters felt that they had legitimate reasons to use armed violence against Morocco. In today's world, you're either a terrorist or fighting terrorists. Morocco already has a track record of fighting terrorism on behalf of Washington. Western Saharan nationalism would be taking a big gamble on violence, one that they're likely to lose.<br /><br />Nor can the Western Saharan independence movement expect the United Nations to do anything for them. Though their base of support in Africa and international legality is firm, it is not enough to counter the Security Council's unwillingness to force a Morocco to cooperate with -- not to mention accept the outcome of -- a referendum on independence. No amount of cooperation with the United Nations will get Polisario anything. Not unless they choose to sell out the Western Saharans' right to self-determination -- an act that would just as soon precipitate Polisario's ouster.<br /><br />So if Western Saharan nationalism is going to do anything, it needs to<br /><blockquote>1) be non-violent<br />and<br />2) get around the United Nations impasse</blockquote>The Western Saharan independence movement needs to make a strong statement to the international community, one that signals their commitment to peace, non-violence, human rights and democracy. For years, Western Saharan nationalists and their international supporters have been saying these things, but the message hasn't gotten through.<br /><br />Thus I propose that the Western Saharan independence movement elect Aminatou Haidar as President of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic at Polisario's Congress this fall.<br /><br />Just imagine it: The Western Saharan independence movement elects a woman as their president. And not just a woman, a human rights defender who is dedicated to non-violence. A woman that almost killed herself last fall while on hunger strike in a Moroccan prison. A woman that now lives with chronic health problems because of the beatings she received from Moroccan police. A woman that lives in the Moroccan occupied Western Sahara. A woman who will represent Western Sahara at the African Union and as the head of Polisario, the other UN recognized party to the Western Sahara conflict.<br /><br />Yes, Morocco will over-react, put her in jail or under house arrest, keep her from fulfilling her role as SADR president. But she will become the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi">Aung San Suu Kyi</a> of North Africa, the emblematic face of a situation that need serious international attention.<br /><br />As the (imprisoned) preside of SADR, Aminatou would bring new sympathy and attention to Western Sahara, bringing shame on the United Nations Security Council and the Western powers that support the Moroccan occupation -- France and the United States. Students on US campuses would start divestment movements, political leaders would feel the pressure, and maybe, just maybe, the US would change its policy on Western Sahara.<br /><br />For Mohammed Abdelaziz, SADR president since 1976, it is time to step down for the good of the movement. He has served his country through war and peace. He has fought hard for his occupied nation and deserves an honored status among the great heroes of Western Saharan nationalism -- Bassiri, El Ouali, Lembarki and the all the other <span style="font-style: italic;">shahid</span>. There is no shame in doing what is best for your country. This would also put to rest rumors that he and Polisario are just a tool of Algeria. It would prove that Polisario has not become ossified and elitist like Fateh. It would show that Western Saharans really control their independence movement, a dynamic movement that stands for all the values that Morocco has trounced in its occupation.<br /><br />Aminatou for President! If the Western Saharan independence movement wants a Nobel Peace Prize, this is how they will get it.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1145130433006428242006-04-15T12:22:00.000-07:002006-04-23T08:52:42.200-07:00Morocco and American Evangelicals<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg/260px-DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg/260px-DeMilleTenCommandmentsDVDcover.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">It should come as no surprise that the recent Ten Commandments miniseries was filmed in Morocco. Dozens of 'ancient' (Gladiator, Alexander) and 'medieval' (Kingdom of Heaven), even contemporary (Mummy, Blackhawk Down), films have been staged in Morocco, especially around the Ouarzazate region, which offers everything from snow-covered mountains to bleak desert-scapes. Labor and extras come very cheap, with recent movies taking advantage of the 'ancient' terrain and readily available workforce. Filmakers, like those that made the new Commandments, also take advantage of Morocco's cultural background to make up for their lack of imagination. In his controversial <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Temptation of Christ</span>, Martin Scorsese appropriated (perverted?) Moroccan Arab and Berber elements for his portrayal of ancient Palestine; the Peter Gabriel soundtrack even used Moroccan music from the filming.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />So it’s not very interesting that the new Ten Commandments was done in Morocco.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />What is interesting is that Morocco has allowed the press to make a big deal about it. For example, "</span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/10/morocco.commandments.ap">Morocco plays Egypt in 'Ten Commandments' miniseries</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">" from CNN. Do a Google news search for Morocco and Ten Commandments and see all the hits.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Think about it. Is there any Middle Eastern country in the world that would feel comfortable letting this happen on their soil? Putting aside the fact that few Middle Eastern countries are secure enough to allow filming, which ones would want to boast that they’re the backdrop? That the lazy movie-makers (mis)appropriated a Muslim culture’s articles and artifacts as props? I wonder what Morocco’s majority Islamic movement thinks about all this -- letting Western film companies paint their historical fantasies on the canvas of Islamic Moroccan culture? Morocco’s monarchical regime, however, probably considers this a feather in its cap.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />As repression in Western Sahara has increased since last May, and as Rabat has faced more pressure to cooperate with the peace process, Morocco is desperately pressing every button in Washington. The biggest one: American evangelicals.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">It seems like an unlikely alliance: A conservative, centuries-old Islamic Monarchy and the religious base of the U.S. far right. But there’s a saying in Washington: All roads lead to Tel Aviv. Morocco has never hid its close relations with Israel, whether acting as a backchannel for Camp David (1979) or, now, as one of its closest allies. Even though it has cost MOrocco on the street, where Islamists now hold sway with the population, Morocco's regime is looks to Washington and Paris for its survival, not to its population. (Western Sahara has also estranged Morocco from Africa, where it is the only African state not to be a part of the African Union.)</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Being close to Evangelicals and Israel earns points where it matters most: in the White House. For Morocco, the State Department is filled with too many career officers who actually know the history of the Western Sahara conflict, and are thus sympathetic to Polisario. The White House, on the other hand, is obviously filled with ideologically driven neo-conservatives, with one foot in Evangelical churches and one foot in the Machiavellian philosophy of Leo Strauss. A Moroccan alliance with American Evangelicals accomplishes both by it showing Rabat’s commitment to the neo-conservative agenda.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Let’s take, for example, the website, </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.speakforsahrawis.org">speakforsahrawis.org</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">, which is as sadly propagandistic as it is poorly designed. Ethics and aesthetics aside, the National Clergy Council founded the website. A 'a growing and dynamic nationwide network of church leaders from every Christian tradition,' the National Clergy Council recently held a series of luncheons 'to focus attention on the little-known and unresolved humanitarian crisis in the Western Sahara region of North Africa.' Sounds good, right? Wait to you see the way the free meals were framed:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />'Attendees will learn about the abuse of tens of thousands of refugees and the forced abductions of their children as recruits for a once Cuban-backed Marxist revolution in the region. Many of these children, now adults, remain separated from their families. The program will include a visiting delegation from the Western Sahara. Members will tell their own compelling stories. Attendees will also learn of the extraordinary invitation to American church leaders to assist in a non-financial way in resolving this conflict and relieving the suffering of massive numbers of victims.' (<a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.earnedmedia.org/ncc0307.htm">http://www.earnedmedia.org/ncc0307.htm</a>)</span></blockquote></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">(Associated with this anti-Polisario smear campaign is Michael Kirtley, of rhe 501c3 non-profit “Friendship Caravan” (<a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://friendshipcaravan.org">friendshipcaravan.org</a>), which is all about evangelical missions to Morocco. Kirtley’s web-designer is Tim Resch, who runs '<a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://friendsofmorocco.org">Friends of Morocco</a>', a non-profit association of returned Peace Corps volunteers that makes no qualms about its close cooperation with the Moroccan government.)</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Something of this sort could only be put on with the help of the Moroccan government (e.g., to fly in Polisario's 'victims'). Though it was probably the brainchild of one of seven lobbies Rabat has working for it in Washington.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Another noted effort of the pro-Moroccan lobby, </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.freethemnow.org">freethemnow.org</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">, has focused on the now defunct issue of Moroccan POWs held by Polisario. Though it tries to look like some humanitarian initiative, that website was registered by a David White of the powerful Edelman lobbying firm.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Those lobbies (and evangelicals), </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=315">detailed in Le Journal</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">, also include many former U.S. diplomats who now stump for Rabat.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Chasli, in his blog, Western Sahara Endgame, has </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://westernsaharaendgame.blogspot.com/2006/04/robert-holley-professional-liar-for.html">recently commented</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"> on the activities of former U.S. diplomat turned pro-Moroccan lobbyist Robert Holley. Holly's organization, the </span><a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.moroccanamericanpolicy.com/">Moroccan-American Center for Policy</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"> (MACP, or Mac-Pee as the folks on the Hill and in State say), is funded by the Moroccan government and has had some recent success raising the profile of the Western Sahara conflict in Washington -- albeit in Morocco's favor. Chasli seems to think it’s unprincipled that Holley went from criticizing Morocco to sucking from its Royal teet. I would argue that if Holley had a principled bone in his body, he probably would have found it hard to work for State Department in Rabat, where U.S. hypocrisy in the Middle East is at its finest.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />However, there’s another reason why Morocco is working so hard to recruit evangelicals to its side of the Western Sahara conflict. It’s actually a counter-recruitment effort.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />For years, Polisario has been cultivating solidarity among church groups in the United States, including evangelicals. Each year dozens of Sahrawis from the refugee camps visit U.S. families for the summer, trips organized through churches. And, in turn, dozens of church goers visit the camps, along with congressional staffers and the occasional elected official. See the website of <a style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://homelandonline.org">Homeland International</a>, which makes the pro-Moroccan sites look pretty shabby.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />Perhaps the biggest sign of Polisario's success on this front is that Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma favors a referendum in Western Sahara. Okalahoma is the home of Kerr-McGee, which has a contract with Morocco to illegally look for oil in the occupied Western Sahara. It is also the home of a church group that is very active on the issue. Though Inhofe got more money from “energy/natural resources” contributions in 2002 than any other, he has strangely become one of Polisario’s main supporters among congressional conservatives.</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /><br />What Morocco fears most is that people in the United States, like those church activists in Oklahoma, will pressure their government into adopting a new policy on Western Sahara. Morocco’s ham-fisted efforts not only seek to give it more clout in the White House’s National Security Council, but also among a grassroots network that is very influential these days -- one that is trending in favor of self-determination for Western Sahara.<br /><br />But if I were a Moroccan I'd wonder why my government is spending millions on lobbies while my country is </span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">drowning in poverty.<br /><br />-SW</span>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1144528899879488792006-04-08T13:09:00.000-07:002006-04-15T08:27:49.856-07:00The Annan Plan for Western Sahara?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.maroc-hebdo.press.ma/MHinternet/Archives_437/ph_437/annan.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://www.maroc-hebdo.press.ma/MHinternet/Archives_437/ph_437/annan.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;">According to South Africa's <a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/basket6st/basket6st1144401746.aspx">Sunday Times and AFP</a> UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is working on his own plan to resolve the thirty-year-old Western Sahara conflict. The details of the plan have not yet been released.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">Morocco, who controls most of the Territory, has said that it is working on its own autonomy proposal, one that would grant Western Sahara self-governance within Moroccan 'sovereignty'. The Polisario Front, an indigenous independence movement, rejects autonomy. Citing international law, it calls for the exercise of the right of self-determination -- to let the Western Saharans express their preference for independence.<br /><br />Time is running short for the UN Mission in Western Sahara (MINURSO), whose mandate expires this month. MINURSO has routinely been extended since its creation in 1991, but <a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://sahara-watch.blogspot.com/2006/04/april-2006-moment-of-truth.html">the US representative at the UN, John Bolton, wants to see the Mission scuttled unless serious progress towards a resolution can be made</a>.<br /><br />According to the Sunday Times/AFP, "Emerging from a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Annan declined to go into details of his plan and said he had not been informed about another project for autonomy of the region that Morocco intends to present to the UN."<br /><br />The major question facing Annan is the Western Saharans' right of self-determination, which vexed the previous mediator, James Baker, the former US secretary of state. Baker's 2003 plan offered a short four year period of autonomy followed by a self-determination vote including both Moroccans settlers inside of, and persons native to, Western Sahara. Even with Moroccan settlers outnumbering native Western Saharans by at least two to one, Morocco has rejected any proposal that questions its 'territorial integrity' through an independence vote.<br /><br />Annan himself has said that self-determination is based on the right to choose independence. Yet Annan said his own plan, according to the article, "would be cautious, seek to be mutually acceptable by those involved and capable of being put into practice without being imposed on any of the parties."<br /><br />If Morocco rejects any option of independence, yet even Annan says that the Western Saharans have a right to independence, how could he propose something that's "mutually acceptable"? Polisario will never give up independence, Morocco will never allow it, and the Security Council will not force either side to accept something they don't like.<br /><br />Annan obviously doesn't have an ace up his sleeve. More likely, he wants to create the perception of progress in Western Sahara to counter Bolton's Polisario sympathies and budget-cutting Zealotry. Annan will be wise to introduce his plan before the parties can react to it, but just in time to affect the Security Council debate on MINURSO at the end of this month.<br /></span>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1144349258758313072006-04-06T11:32:00.000-07:002006-04-19T07:36:40.536-07:00April 2006 - Moment of Truth?<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Will Bolton Break the Western Sahara Stalemate?</span></span><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/IMG/gif/BOLTON-TA-2.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/IMG/gif/BOLTON-TA-2.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">April 2006 could become a decisive month in the history of the Western Sahara conflict. The United States’ temporary UN representative, John Bolton, has made no secret of his desire to shake things up in the Sahara -- to unsettle the diplomatic war of attrition being waged by Morocco and the Algerian-backed independence front Polisario. His chance will come at the end of April, when the mandate for the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) comes up for renewal. Bolton claims that his position with respect to MINURSO is principled. Like other UN missions, Bolton has argued that the UN operation in Western Sahara should be terminated unless it can fulfill its mandate. (One Moroccan magazine, Le Journal, however, recently reported that Bolton’s boss,</span> </span><a style="font-family: georgia; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.lejournal-hebdo.com/article.php3?id_article=7718">Secretary of State Condi Rice, has had to rein him in on Western Sahara</a><span style="font-family:georgia;">).<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:georgia;" >Bolton is no newcomer to the Western Sahara conflict. Starting in 1997, he worked -- pro-bono -- under former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. As Kofi Annan’s Personal Envoy to Western Sahara until 2004, Baker led negotiations between Morocco and Polisario. Baker first worked out all the problems with the 1991 UN Settlement Plan until Morocco rejected it in 2000. Then Baker started working on autonomy proposals that would also allow for an act of self-determination. The first, presented in 2001, was close to what Morocco wants because it did not offer independence outright. The second, presented in 2003, explicity reintroduced the idea of independence, and so Morocco rejected it. All the time, Bolton was in the loop, until Baker resigned in June 2004.<br /><br />When introducing himself at the United Nations last fall, Bolton reportedly told every mission that if he did one thing during his short recess-appointment mandate, he would fix Western Sahara. What Bolton has in mind is not clear, except that he is obviously threatening to pull the plug on a mission that has existed for fifteen years come April.<br /><br />The Security Council has ritually extended the Mission’s mandate since its creation in 1991, which saw the end of the sixteen-year war between Morocco and Polisario. MINURSO was originally had a six month timetable for a referendum polling 80,000 Saharans. Both Morocco and Polisario, however, had very different ideas about who should vote. During its first nine years, MINURSO tried to organize a classic decolonization referendum. It was supposed to allow indigenous Western Saharans to choose between independence and integration. Following the death of King Hassan II in mid-1999, the Moroccan regime lost interest in the referendum. The key architect of Morocco’s effort to fix the vote in its favor, Interior Minister Driss Basri, was removed from power soon after King Mohammed VI took over. With Basri and Hassan out of the way, the Morocco’s power-elite, especially the military-security apparatus, could reassert itself through the new King, and abandon the idea of an referendum on independence.<br /><br />During negotiations in Berlin in 2000 (the last known face-to-face meeting between Morocco and the independence front Polisario), Morocco expressed its willingness to consider autonomy as a definitive final status, yet independence had to be taken off the table. France and the United States, Morocco’s strongest backers, agreed with Morocco’s turn towards “autonomy”, as the likely vote for independence in Western Sahara would be too traumatic for Morocco’s new regime head.<br /><br />The problem now facing the Security Council is that MINURSO exists to hold a referendum on independence. Morocco rejects any peace proposal that would question its “sovereignty” vis-à-vis independence, even when the majority of voters in the referendum would be Moroccan citizens, voting alongside native Western Saharans. Yet the Secretary General has made it clear that “It is difficult to envision a political solution that, as required by Security Council resolution 1429 (2002), provides for self-determination but that nevertheless precludes the possibility of independence as one of several ballot options.”<br /><br />Kofi Annan’s new Personal Envoy to Western Sahara, Dutch diplomat Peter Van Walsum, apparently is having trouble filling Baker’s shoes. When touring the region last fall he called the conflict “quasi-irreconcilable”. He told the Security Council in April that it would not be resolved this year. Van Walsum reportedly felt that he wasn’t “fully briefed” before taking on the assignment.<br /><br />For the French government, especially Jacques Chirac, who is personally involved with the Moroccan royal family, extending MINURSO for the sake of monitoring the ceasefire is fine with them. Whatever is good for Morocco determines the French vote on the Security Council. (It’s no wonder that Polisario is eagerly awaiting the French presidential elections.)<br /><br />Thus the only hope for shaking up the Western Sahara deadlock, at this point, is Bolton. Bolton, however, as a Baker protégé, is bad for Morocco, and Rabat knows it. The fact that Baker showed sympathy for Polisario was enough to put him on Morocco’s bad side. No need to mention Baker's disgust with Morocco's lack of cooperation following Rabat's rejection of his 2003 Peace Plan. It’s no secret that Bolton is far right, and no secret that some of Polisario’s biggest supporters in Washington are as far right as can be. (Though Polisario also counts Ted Kennedy among their supporters as well.)<br /><br />How much freedom of movement Bolton has on the East River is unknown. So far he has carried out his campaign of reforms with full support from Washington. That might buy him some leverage on his pet issue of Western Sahara, though Morocco’s supporters on the National Security Council (i.e., Cold Warrior Elliot Abrams) probably like the status quo -- even if it means extending MINURSO ad nauseam, perhaps for another fifteen years and another half-billion dollars.<br /><br />-SW</span></span>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1139136620504923702006-02-05T02:25:00.000-08:002006-04-04T17:15:28.286-07:00Is Morocco Serious About Autonomy?In any territorial conflict, it is only natural to explore all ways and means of resolving the dispute. In the case of Western Sahara, there’s been <a href="http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/January/middleeast_January575.xml§ion=middleeast&col=">a lot of talk about autonomy</a> recently. Morocco is offering it, <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03354307.htm">but Western Saharan nationalists don’t seem interested</a>. Is that because they’ll only take independence, or because they have doubts about Morocco’s sincerity?<br /><br />Given that Morocco just handed down several harsh sentences to several pro-independence activists, one can understand why they might be a little skeptical. Or perhaps it’s the fact that Morocco has yet to acknowledge the fate of some 500 Saharans "disappeared" in the 1970s and 1980s? Or the fact that Moroccan police have killed several Saharans recently. Needless to say, Morocco has a real credibility problem among some Western Saharan nationalists.<br /><br />The Western Sahara dispute -- between Morocco and the nationalist Polisario Front -- has been under UN mediation for almost 20 years. A large proportion of that time was spent trying to hold a classic self-determination referendum, one that would ask whether or not the native people of Western Sahara want to be with Morocco or be independent.<br /><br />That project was largely abandoned in 2000 for several reasons. First of all, Morocco had a new King, Mohammed VI, who took the throne in July 1999. Though he had strong support from Washington and Paris, this young and inexperienced leader could not take risks like his father could, especially on an issue like Western Sahara. For most Moroccans, Western Sahara is a part of Morocco. The thought of it becoming independent is, well, unthinkable. Furthermore, the 1999 UN referendum in East Timor -- another colony, like Western Sahara, gobbled up by a powerful neighbor -- incited a bloodbath that seemed all too likely in Western Sahara as well. Around the same time, in September 1999, there were massive demonstrations in Western Sahara for more social, cultural and economic rights. These demonstrations were joined by Moroccan settlers imported to vote for Rabat in the referendum. If Morocco needed any definitive proof that it would lose the referendum, that was it. Finally, the UN Secretary-General <a href="http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=S/2000/131&Lang=E">acknowledged</a> the fact that,<br /><blockquote>"Furthermore, even assuming that a referendum were held … , if the result were not to be recognized and accepted by one party, it is worth noting that no enforcement mechanism is envisioned by the settlement plan, nor is one likely to be proposed, calling for the use of military means to effect enforcement"<br /></blockquote>Here the UN was admitting that the Security Council would not force Morocco to accept the outcome of the likely vote for independence. So before they even got to that point, the UN decided to give up the referendum and try something new.<br /><br />That something new was called the “third way” -- a solution between absolute independence for Western Sahara and total integration with Morocco. Some kind of agreement between Polisario and Morocco that would give Western Sahara a degree of autonomous self-governance and political freedom within the Kingdom of Morocco.<br /><br />The person in charge of figuring out the “third way” was James Baker, former US Secretary of State and lead negotiator for Western Sahara since 1997. Between 2001 and 2003, Baker offered two different “autonomy proposals”. In both cases, Baker proposed that Western Sahara would become an autonomous part of Morocco for four years. After that period, Western Saharans and Moroccan settlers would vote on the Territory’s final status. Morocco preferred the first one because it did not explicitly mention independence as an option for final status. Morocco rejected the second one in 2003 because it explicitly offered independence, which was demanded by the Security Council.<br /><br />Polisario, however, did the exact opposite: rejected the first and accepted the second. After Polisario embraced Baker’s 2003 proposal, the ball was in Morocco’s court. Over two years later Rabat has yet to make a public counter offer.<br /><br />In November 2005, King Mohammed VI of Morocco declared his willingness to consider autonomy as a way to resolve the Western Sahara conflict. This is nothing new really. Since the Berlin negotiations in 2000, Morocco’s position has been that independence must be taken off the table, but anything short of that can be discussed. For their part, Polisario has rejected autonomy as a lone final status option. Polisario has accepted that autonomy is suitable for a transitional before a referendum, but any referendum must include the option of independence. The other options can include autonomy or integration with Morocco. Yet Morocco wants a referendum only on autonomy. That is, two ballot choices: Do you accept autonomy or Not? No one is quite sure what would happen if the answer is “no”. (Offered a similar referendum on autonomy in 1999, the people in East Timor overwhelmingly voted no, which led to its independence. Though Indonesia had already agreed on that.)<br /><br />Morocco seems serious about autonomy, but is it? Is King Mohammed sincere, or is he just responding to international pressure? It’s obvious that the Security Council won’t force Morocco to accept the Baker Plan, but will they continue to support the Mission in Western Sahara if Rabat’s offers nothing positive. Indeed, Morocco has done nothing constructive in the past two and a half years since rejecting the Baker Plan. Despite Rabat’s rejection of his Plan in 2003, Baker stayed on for another year, yet Morocco did not offer a viable counter-proposal. When Baker resigned his position, Morocco’s foreign minister chalked it up to the “tenacity” of his foreign policy. When the US government arranged for the release of the last Moroccan POWs held by Polisario last summer, Morocco’s response to this olive branch was to ratchet up its repression against Western Saharan nationalists in Laâyoune.<br /><br />If Morocco was serious about autonomy, and wanted to undermine support for Polisario, the best move it could make is to start implementing autonomy right now. After withdrawing some of its settlers and most of its army, Rabat should grant a locally elected Western Sahara government, led by ethnic Saharans, exclusive control over its economy, social and cultural affairs and its own policing. This would include control over revenues earned from fisheries and phosphates. Western Sahara would be autonomous in that the central Moroccan government (i.e., the King) would not be able to unilaterally abolish it. While this kind of unilateral move would not solve the Western Sahara conflict to the satisfaction of the international community, it would demonstrate Rabat’s seriousness about autonomy. It would also show many Saharans that Morocco does care about them.<br /><br />The fact that Morocco will not -- and cannot -- make this move demonstrates that autonomy, for now, is a lot of talk. Besides, the Moroccan military is heavily entrenched in the local economy of Western Sahara. From migrant smuggling to the billion dollar fishing industry, its little fingers are in every part of the Saharan pie. While the Moroccan foreign ministry is going around talking about autonomy, the Interior Ministry and the security agencies are tightening their grip on the Territory. Recent reports of the Secretary General note that Morocco is improving its defenses. Morocco has signed a fisheries agreement with the EU, which includes Western Saharan waters; Rabat has also renewed its oil exploration contracts with Kerr-McGee for areas off the coast of Western Sahara.<br /><br />Does this seem like the actions of a government that is contemplating autonomy? Under baker's 2001 proposal -- the one Morocco liked -- fisheries and hydrocarbon exploitation would be under the control of the autonomous Western Saharan government. Yet Rabat has not given one indication that it is willing to share, let alone give up, control of these key economic assets in Western Sahara.<br /><br />The fact that autonomy seems so unlikely in today’s Morocco says a lot about where autonomy is going -- that is, nowhere.<br /><br />Morocco has stolen a play from Israel’s book: Talk peace, make war. And hope the international community is too preoccupied to notice the difference between the rhetoric and the reality.sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1134573146023171622005-12-14T06:26:00.000-08:002005-12-14T07:12:30.306-08:00Beheading the Hydra? Morocco and the Sahrawi IntifadaSince late May, the Moroccan government has been struggling to control an unexpected -- and unprecedented -- native uprising in the section of Western Sahara under its administrative control.<br /><br />Yesterday Morocco sentenced fourteen key leaders in this movement, handing down sentences ranging from six months to three years. Two of the youngest activists, Aminatou Haidar and Ali Salem Tamek, who have grown up under Moroccan occupation, were given seven and eight month sentences respectively. First generation nationalists and long time human rights activists like Brahim Noumria and Hmed Hamad received longer sentences.<br /><br />The summer of 2005 saw some of the fiercest resistance to the Moroccan occupation since Rabat marched into the former Spanish colony in October 1975. Like Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, Morocco originally fought an external threat, the Polisario Front, an indigenous Western Saharan independence movement backed by, and based in, Algeria. But now Morocco is facing a full fledged internal 'Intifada' against Morocco's attempted annexation of the territory. Earlier this week Saharan students in primary and secondary schools held demonstrations, unfurling the flag of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic, the Polisario's government in exile.<br /><br />The tensions have led to the beating death of one Saharan youth and, recently, the murder of an elder Saharan at the hands of Moroccan security forces. The later occurred in the town of Tan Tan, a city located in southern Morocco but a traditionally ethnic Sahrawi (Saharan) city.<br /><br />Indeed, discontent is not limited to the territory of Western Sahara under Moroccan control, but has spread to ethnic Sahrawi areas in Morocco. An ethnic Sahrawi from Morocco, Ali Salem Tamek is the popular face of the new Intifada, which has gained in momentum since exploding into existence in September 1999.<br /><br />Aminatou Haidar has become a symbol of resistance herself. "Disappeared" by the Moroccan state in 1988, only to reappear in 1991 without redress, Mrs Haidar almost died in August following a harrowing fifty-five day hunger strike.<br /><br />The Moroccan government's strategy is obviously aimed at decapitating the movement. (Another key leader, Briahim Dahane, is still awaiting trial.) Yet even with the main activists in jail, the demonstrations show no sign of ceasing.<br /><br />Another possibility is that Morocco is hoping to frustrate the movement so that someone will resort to terrorism. That would give Morocco, , in the eyes of France and the U.S., a blank cheque to arrest thousands, as it did with Islamists following the May 2003 bombings in Casablanca. So far, the Saharan demonstrations have been fairly non-violent, though there are now nightly scuffles between rock throwing Sahrawi youths and baton wielding Moroccan police. <br /><br />It remains to be seen how the Saharan population will respond to these sentences.<br /><br />However, if Morocco resorted to massive repression, don't expect the Polisario to sit quietly in Tindouf.<br /><br />-SWsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1132526902152947212005-11-20T14:43:00.000-08:002005-11-20T15:31:47.856-08:00Peace and POWs: Obscuring the Western Sahara Issue with A Flock of Red Herrings<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"I will have liked to die in Tindouf!"<br />-Corporal Abdeslam Roubal, former Moroccan POW held by the Polisario for 19 years in Tindouf</blockquote>This past week, the US congress held a hearing on the Western Sahara conflict, its first in over five years. Witnesses ranged from a deputy at the State Department, to the former head of the UN’s Sahara mission, to a noted British observer of the conflict, to a right-wing critic of the botched UN referendum cum peace process.<br /><br />Another witnesses was a former Moroccan POW, whose presence was an obvious concession to the pro-Moroccan representatives on the convening International Relations Subcommittee on Africa. For example, Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, co-chairman of the congressional Morocco caucus. Diaz-Balart's prepared statement simply reminded the Committee of Morocco’s close relations with the US and the Polisario’s ties with the “tyrants” like Mu‘amar Qadhdhafi and Fidel Castro. No surprise, Diaz-Balart is a republican from Florida. I’m just surprised he didn’t mention the Polisario’s cozy relations with Hugo Chavez.<br /><br />Rather than focus on how to find a solution, which the hearing’s title implied, "Getting to 'Yes'," referencing an influential book on conflict resolution, Diaz-Balart felt it better to spend his time trying to de-legitimize one of the parties to the conflict -- the Polisario. How this kind of partisanship will advance peace is in the region is beyond me. It only obscures the central issue and makes it harder for policymakers and policy-influencers to make clear choices.<br /><br />This shouldn’t be surprising though. Morocco’s strategy on the Hill is to undermine the hard won bipartisan support Polisario Front – the Western Saharan liberation movement – has gained over the years: partially due to the fact that their cause speaks for itself, but also due in large parts to the charisma and tireless legwork of Front’s Washington-based representative. To counter this, Morocco has spent millions on direct advertising, funded its own “think-tank” of fomer US diplomats (the Moroccan-American Committee for Policy), and hired at least five of the most powerful lobbying firms on K Street, including the Livingston Group.<br /><br />One of the persons reportedly coordinating Morocco’s attacks on Polisario is the infamous Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado, the woman who helped concoct the whole Iraqi-soldiers-killing-Kuwaiti-babies story in 1990. Apparently, she was behind a September delegation of Polisario defectors who came to the US to lobby against the Polisario’s student exchange programs with Cuba. Their main claim is that Algerian and the Polisario force Saharan children from the refugee camps under Polisario control in Algeria to study in Cuba, where they receive “political indoctrination” and little else. A Saharan father-daughter team, reportedly foribly separated for years while the latter was in Cuba against her will, toured the Hill and, of course, went to Miami. Having met many Saharan students who have returned from 10 or more years in Cuba, I can say that their only complaint is that life in the refugee camps is far less interesting than their days and nights in Havana. And at least they come back with a skill they can use, something they can't get in the camps.<br /><br />Another thing worth pointing out is that most of the former Polisario members who defect to Morocco will be compensated greatly if they choose to “speak out” against their former comrades, even if it means lying. Otherwise, they face the grim job prospects faced by all other Moroccans – except that the only thing they can put on their resume is “former separatist.” Any journalist with half a brain could easily find out that Morocco’s propaganda campaigns are as choreographed for right-wing consumption as they are highly deceptive. That should tell you something about the kind of journalists they have at Miami Herald.<br /><br />However, the most ridiculous claim that Morocco has put forward is that the 100,000 or so refugees under Polisario supervision near Tindouf, Algeria, are prisoners against their own will. This has even been suggested in Washington, and it is starting to come up more and more often in the press. There's even a "civil society" movement in Morocco to "free" the refugees. It is probably important for the Moroccans to believe that the majority of the refugees that have lived for 30 years in exile would actually rather live under Moroccan occupation. But then why did over 90 percent tell the UNHCR in 1997 that they would rather vote for self-determination under Polisario-supervision than under Moroccan-supervision?<br /><br />A Moroccan journalist Ali Lmrabret went to Tindouf and reported the truth of the matter: the camps are relatively peaceful and places of free association, expression and assembly. For that, a Moroccan court tried him <span style="font-style: italic;">in abstentia</span> and stripped him of his right to practice journalism.<br /><br />In the now 30 year old history of the Western Sahara conflict, few issues have worked in Rabat's favor as much as the Polisario's egregious detention of hundreds of Moroccan POWs past the 1991 cease-fire. The Polisario finally released the last 400 of these POWs this summer under the aegis of US Senator Richard Lugar, who agreed to oversee their release as a sign of the US government’s commitment to the Polisario-Moroccan peace process and Moroccan-Algerian reconciliation. As a reciprocal sign of Rabat’s “goodwill,” repression of Saharans living under Moroccan control in the occupied Western Sahara was ramped up, which now includes the public death-by-beating of a young Saharan demonstrator earlier this month.<br /><br />As is often noted, the Polisario captured over 2,000 Moroccan POWs during the long war over the territory, 1975-1991. Some captured as early as 1976, they were held in conditions far less than adequate for POWs. Reputable human rights organizations have echoed claims by former prisoners that they were subject to torture, forced labor and extra-judicial execution. In 2003, the French NGO France Liberties released a damning report on the POWs that accused Algeria and the Polisario of some of the worst acts of brutality imaginable. The report, however, was so riddled with a priori falsehoods, that it was hard to take seriously as a respectable human rights report.<br /><br />For a time, Morocco was the biggest obstacle to the release of the POWs. In the early-1990s, the Polisario released dozens of the most elderly and infirm prisoners, yet Rabat refused to accept them. Indeed, Morocco had long denied their existence of the POWs to its own population. That group of POWs had to be forcefully repatriated to Morocco by an Argentine and US diplomat in the mid-1990s.<br /><br />Earlier this year, the Polisario came under significant pressure to release the POWs when former Senator John McCain held a press conference expressing his outrage at the continued detention of the Moroccan POWs by the Polisario. As a high profile senator and former POW, McCain helped bring an end to this sad state of affairs. For his service to the Moroccan regime, McCain – along with Diaz-Balart – was conferred a special title as a “commander” by the ‘Alawi monarchy on November 9. Though one wonders if anyone bothered to tell him that Morocco has never come clean on its own Saharan POWs, or the 500 Saharan civilians still considered “disappeared” by Morocco.<br /><br />One also wonders if McCain will follow up with the Moroccan government on the treatment of most of the POWs since returning to Morocco. A select few lobby Washington – e.g., those who received training at US military bases in the 1970s and 1980s and therefore speak flawless English. The rest are kept under tight control by the state and there are complaints of neglect.<br /><br />As recently reported by a Moroccan magazine, Tel Quel, one former POW said he’d rather have died in Tindouf:<br /><a href="http://www.telquel-online.com/194/actu_194.shtml"></a><blockquote><a href="http://www.telquel-online.com/194/actu_194.shtml"> Tel Quel October 9, 2005<br />Armée. “J’aurai aimé mourir à Tindouf !”</a><br />Un septième militaire marocain libéré par le POLISARIO vient de décéder dans l’indifférence à l’hôpital militaire de Rabat, victime d’un cancer. "Sa femme s’est remariée, sa famille l’a ignoré et surtout l’état marocain qu’il n’a pas arrêté d’interpeller pour lui venir en aide faisait la sourde oreille", nous rapporte un membre de l’association des martyrs et disparus du Sahara. Le caporal Abdeslam Roubal, qui a été relâché en 2000 après 19 ans d’incarcération, jusqu’à son dernier souffle répétait sur son lit de mort: "J’aurai préféré finir mes jours sous une tente à Tindouf."</blockquote>The problem with standing up for principle, Senator McCain, is that it is rather unprincipled not to defend that principle in all cases, at all times.<br /><br />-SWsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1132363316588897682005-11-19T11:00:00.000-08:002005-11-19T15:42:50.986-08:00Interesting bits of history to get you started - #2The Guardian's Ian Black offered a thorough summary of the history of the Western Sahara conflict last week, well worth reading. It's mostly on target except there are a few problems:<br /><blockquote>".. November 1975, when King Hassan of Morocco launched his famous Green March to occupy the gravel desert that had been evacuated by Spain after nearly a century [of colonialism] ..."</blockquote>Not quite right. The Green March was launched precisely to drive Spain out. Faced with the prospect of having to kill riled up Moroccan civilians bent on a jingoist "jihad" (Hassan's word) in November 1975, Madrid opted to abandon the territory to King Hassan. Spain didn't formally leave until February 1976.<br /><blockquote>"But some 150,000 refugees, including those who fled the 1975 invasion and their descendants, remain to this day in grim refugee camps at Tindouf..."<br /></blockquote>That's the official number -- provided by Algeria. The real number is probably closer to 90,000, maybe as high as 110,000, but not much more. Only 40,000 persons from the refugee camps qualified to vote in the referendum, so either 3/4 of the population was less than 18 years old in 1994 or Algeria and Polisario have been inflating the numbers. Both have refused to hold a census in the camps and the UN World Food Program has unilaterally cut the aid from 155,000 persons to 90,000 recently without providing justification for the reduction.<br /><blockquote>"In 2003 a UN plan proposed to give the Sahara autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty pending a referendum, a position which Polisario reluctantly accepted even though it fell far short of its demand for full independence. Morocco rejected the plan.<br /> Intense haggling over precisely who is eligible to vote underlines the view that Morocco cannot risk a free vote it knows it would lose."<br /></blockquote>Morocco <span style="font-style: italic;">officially</span> rejected the 2003 Baker plan because it contained the option of independence after the 5 year autonomy period, saying that its 'territorial integrity' will not be put to a vote. (The Polisario and Algeria, on the other hand, reject anything that doesn't contain an independence option, which they claim is a part of self-determination.) Under the 2003 Baker plan, the majority Moroccan settlers (120,000 versus 110,000 indigenous Saharans) would be allowed to vote, which should have resolved the 'voter eligibility' issues for Morocco. So Morocco's real problem is that it doesn't even trust its own settlers to vote for integration. In a country where at least 75% of the population wants to emigrate, Rabat's fears are probably well founded.<br /><br />-SW<br /><br />P.S. Here's a letter from the UK-based Western Sahara Campaign in the Guardian in response to Black's article:<br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1645648,00.html"> "End this neglected injustice: More international pressure must be put on Morocco over its occupation of the Western Sahara, says Carne Ross" </a>sahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19107749.post-1132354167659889932005-11-18T23:00:00.000-08:002005-11-19T02:17:22.743-08:00Interesting bits of history to get you started - #1Editor Benchemsi and friends at the embattled Moroccan magazine Tel Quel have, once again, challenged the national master narrative of Morocco in the Sahara. Not 100% historically correct, but quite interesting, especially given the significant timing around the anniversary of the Green March. <br /><br />La vérité sur la Marche Verte: Dans les faits, les 350 000 personnes n’ont pas toutes marché sur le Sahara, la majorité sont restées dans les campements. "Tel Quel" (11 November 2005)<br />http://www.telquel-online.com/198/sujet1.shtmlsahara-watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09724370847533410399noreply@blogger.com0