Bring 'em on, says Mr. Brooks.
Western Sahara archaeologist Nick Brooks, if you remember, has posted this in an old debate thread. Fearing that people will miss it over there -- and partly because I'm so helpful and kind, partly because his observations are really interesting -- I've plucked most of it out of the comments space and put it up here instead. Feel free to discuss his conclusions, either here or over at Sand & Dust.
I've met plenty of exiled Sahrawi in the camps and in the Free Zone and, while I can't (and won't) speak for them all, every one of the Sahrawi that I've met has seemed genuinely and enthusiastically in favour of an independent Western Sahara free from Moroccan control. And a lot of them are quite enthusiastic about restarting the conflict, even if only to jolt the international community into some sort of meaningful action.Comments are now open for quarreling. If you don't want to debate that, there's always the civil war in Algeria.
Although it might not be perfect, the Polisario does appear to enjoy widespread popular support among the exiled Sahrawi population. I haven't travelled to the occupied territories, but it's apparent from the protests that at least some Sahrawi living under Moroccan occupation are determinedly opposed to said occupation. Of course others do see autonomy as a solution, and the debate in the occupied territories seems to be somewhat different from that among the exiles.
I have my own blog which comments on the Western Sahara issue as well as on other topics. I will confess that I'm in favour of Sahrawi independence, so I am partisan here (although I dislike cheap propaganda that involves nothing more than fabrication and assertion, whichever side it comes from - reasoned argument is so much better). That said, in the interests of furthering the Sahrawi cause I'd like to invite some supporters of the Moroccan occupation to comment on my blog. Credulous, crude and inarticulate recycling of Moroccan propaganda by amateur Moroccan nationalists is very helpful to the Sahrawi, as it casts Morocco and its supporters in a very bad light, as ignorant apologists for an occupation the nature of which they don't understand. So please feel free to post such comments on my blog so that I can have some ammunition with which to ridicule the Moroccan position. (I'm sorry if that's cheap - I just couldn't resist it. Let's see if anyone takes me up on it!)
27 comments:
Tell Nick to keep away from my crazy Moroccans. Keep off the grass!
I find Brooks' comments somewhat vague and subjective though I appreciate his honesty admitting that " [he is] partisan". It is quite obvious that if you were to ask someone in exile of whether she or he is in favour of forming part of the same country/society that she or he feels was behind his disarray she or he will be in no way supportive of that idea. The idea of Independence in itself is sexy. I bet you anything that if you were to ask some jobless youngster from the suburbs of Casablanca whether he is in favour of an independent and free Casablanca. He too will respond positively. Now, saying that "the Polisario does appear to enjoy widespread popular support among the exiled Sahrawi population" is pure speculation. To my knowledge, they were not elected. Why isn't Brooks mentioning anything about the state of the refugee camps? The Polisario has committed many atrocities, including torture against their own people, a fact that had been recognized by Amnesty International in 1996. Conditions in the refugee camps are bad and humanitarian aid is diverted daily. This converts the refugees into a human shield, a tool that serves the political interests of those who claim to be the leaders of the Sahrawi People and their allies.
here we go again an other polisario super star with the same song sadly couldn't make it to the
top 10 chart
Mr brook morocco is a proud nation with it thousand year history &nobody knows it history or the history of it region ie north Africa better than it people so if you think different then you are really wrong
here's my question to you can you tell me the name of the so called polisario state prior to the invasion of Spain?????????????
as i said we're very proud nation with multiple language check this moroccan crazy he's got a speech for you called set language
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V2fTfac1Ygs
Tangerino,
The concept of a "Polisario state" prior to Spanish colonialism is nonsense.
-JAK
to Justin
The concept of a "Polisario state" prior to Spanish colonialism is nonsense.
what you couldn't find it or it never existed
Tangerino,
Polisario was founded to fight colonialism. To ask for a Polisario state prior to colonialism is nonsense; it's ahistorical and self-contradictory.
-JAK
to justin
you obviously don't know much about the history of the region i think most of the information that you read are from the website that support polisario or from some western historians and that's the prolem as they say some you win some you lose
tangerino -- living proof that you can move from new commenter to background noise in less than five postings...
but won't someone answer ali's post? there are some really good points in there.
Whether or not a state has existed is not a good ground for making claims on territories.
Great Britain once ruled over larger parts of the north of America, but that is no reason for it to make claims on the USA or Canada for that matter.
The same goes for Turkey that ruled large parts of the world during the Ottoman empire, or Austria with the Habsburgs.
That a state never existed is neither ground for refusing people's right to self-determination. Not in Western Sahara or in Palestine. Whenever did you see a Palestinian state? But is that any reason to refuse the Palestinians exactly that, a proper state?
All people, including people in Morocco, have an internationally recognized right to self-determination. Morocco has signed the UN charter and hence agreed to this principle.
If for example people in the Rif region, once a self-ruling territory/country however short-lived, they have the right to do so. As do people in the Basque country in Spain, or people in French Corsica - or people in Western Sahara.
You see, even if the International Court had ruled that Western Sahara indeed was Moroccan - which it didn't although this is taught in schools in Moroccan controlled territories - the Saharawi people still would have the right to self-determination.
The basis for the UN charter is the people's right to self-determination - not the state's right to rule the people. Why? Because that is the basis for democracy, aka people's rule.
Ali suggests that "independence in itself is sexy". Maybe so. But in Moroccan controlled territories it is against the law to even discuss such matters. I am glad you can to that here.
I do not agree however to the thesis on sexiness. Take Spain or Canada for example where similar debates are omnipresent, being legal do hold them. So far the independence followers have not prevailed, as Bush would put it, and the countries stay as we know them.
Self-rule however, that is a very sexy feeling. You can get that within the borders of an existing state, given that the state is democratic - but that is unfortunately not the case with Morocco.
Now, you might like Western Sahara to become independent or you might want it to become Moroccan, but you have to let the people of that region decide that for themselves.
About the Saharawis in the refugee camps being "a human shield", off course they are in some sense. Like the settlers in Western Sarah and the false Saharawis in the camps outside Dakhla and Bojador are for the Moroccan king.
But then again, why are the Saharawi refugees there? Because Polisario lurched them into going, or because Moroccan troops entered Western Sahara? We surely have different opinions here, but had Morocco not entered the territory, people would have stayed a referendum would have been selebrated and we would have had an independent Saharawi state + no war hopefully and a free-trade union in the Maghreb. You might like to ask youself what Morocco would gain most from, continuing its occupation or leaving the territory and pave way for a free-trade union in the Maghreb with open borders from Mauritania to Tunis?
Regarding the leadership of Polisario it can surely be criticized for many things, especially in the past. It is however elected by the Saharawis, and the leadership can therefor be overturned at the next congress if people chose so.
An option not given the Moroccans in the elections in September...
Should there ever be a peaceful solution to the conflict over Western Sahara, Morocco must however become a democracy where the leaders are elected by the people and not by the king, and where freedom of speech is guaranteed even if it favors change of government or the territory's internationally recognized borders. Borders that today do not include Western Sahara. Just like the Westbank and Eastern Jerusalem are not part of Israel.
Speaking about Israel and the Palestinians, Ian Willams had an interesting article in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs the other day with the headline "Morocco’s Designs on Western Sahara Pose Danger to Palestinians".
Sorry for the long post... I'd better get my own blog soon. ;)
Tangerino,
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
-JAK
Sorry for the long post... I'd better get my own blog soon. ;)
Yes you should. Get to it!
About WS and self-determination, the key factor as I see it is not the right of every people to self-determination -- even if that is important too. It is the colonial borders of Western Sahara, as a separate entity from Morocco. Western Sahara is the only major African colonial territory which hasn't either become independent or federated voluntarily with another country after starting off as independent (as did Zanzibar in today's Tanzania), and this is ONLY due to Moroccan refusal to allow for proper self-determination. In this, it is similar to Palestine: the only Arab territory (well, except WS) which had its self-determination process aborted by external factors, and today remains of unclear status.
Had WS become independent according to normal rules in 1975, with or without a vote, I think it is entirely possible it would have joined a neighbouring country soon after -- though, most likely, it would have been Mauritania. Now, however, the chances for that are pretty slim.
laroussi
you need to take a break or long holiday because you keep contradicting yourself , Palestine did exist prior to 1948
to alle
you mentioned Zanzibar palestine what else aceh province the native indian of America the falkland island
tangerino do you know where i can get some photos of laayoune &bojdour
hi punchman you still punching
about laayoune check this site it has a lot of moroccan cities
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=387978
see you later man
punchman -- My comparison was about present or former colonial territories in Africa, not just places off the tip of my tongue. Other good examples would be today's Western Sahara, Namibia, Tchad, Angola or Morocco -- but hardly the native Americans.
As for Palestine, short version, no.
Punchman said:
"Palestine did exist prior to 1948".
This statement was taken out of context as Laroussi was referring to Palestine as a state. Here's what he said:
"That a state never existed is neither ground for refusing people's right to self-determination. Not in Western Sahara or in Palestine [...] Whenever did you see a Palestinian state?"
Palestine never actually existed as a state or as a nation neither prior to 1948 nor passed 1948. It did however exist as a region...
Palestine never actually existed as a state or as a nation neither prior to 1948 nor passed 1948. It did however exist as a region...
Thank you Ali. I am glad you keep a serious position in this discussion. Like Palestine, Western Sahara existed as a region.
Both the Palestinians and Saharawis are now suffering the consequences of an occupation.
We often tend to accuse France, Spain and the USA for their support to the Moroccan kingdom. However, the silent and sometimes public support to Morocco from the League of Arab States is nonetheless important.
Morocco get their arms from the West, but it's the Saudis who are behind the financing.
Would the Arab states start treating the Saharawis as an occupied people, a lot would be gained in convincing Morocco ends its occupation and to allow a free referendum on self-determination.
Speaking about equal treatment based on international law, ever heard someone from the Arabic states or elsewhere argue that the Palestinians have to pass by a referendum in order to get independence? That would be the day... ;-)
Here is by the way an interesting text about Oral History in the Palestinian and Sahrawi Contexts.
tangerino thanks for the site i liked ifrane & tangiers the latter must be your city it beautiful
the history
1895
The total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.
1896
Following the appearance of anti-Semitism in Europe, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism tried to find a political solution for the problem in his book, 'The Jewish State'. He advocated the creation of a Jewish state in Argentina or Palestine.
1897
The first Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, which issued the Basle programme on the colonization of Palestine and the establishment of the World Zionist Organization (WZO).
1904
Fourth Zionist Congress decided to establish a national home for Jews in Argentina.
1906
The Zionist congress decided the Jewish homeland should be Palestine.
1914
With the outbreak of World War I, Britain promised the independence of Arab lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, in return for Arab support against Turkey which had entered the war on the side of Germany.
1916
Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized.
1917
Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary sent a letter to the Zionist leader Lord Rothschild which later became known as "The Balfour declaration". He stated that Britain would use its best endeavors to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. At that time the population of Palestine was 700,000 of which 574,000 were Muslims, 74,000 were Christian, and 56,000 were Jews.
hi punchman
don't bother cause this guys are not here to get to the truth they are here solely to make noise
take the comment of laroussi he keeps using to much of ingredient
like great britain ,america,turkey,palestine,bask region,east timor and what you get et voila you get american pancake mixed British custard mixed with east noodle mixed with turkish hashish kebabs and last but not last the piece resistance mon amie garnished with an article from Ian Williams god knows who is he made by a blogger called randa farah
punchman please ask me who the f*** is randa farah you wanna know
Randa Farah - I'm Lebanese, and proud to be so!!!!! My Personal Interests: ARTS: Photography, Web Design, Graphic Design, Decoration, Interior design, Paintings; MUSIC: Rock (Soft Rock, Hard rock, Classical Rock, ...), 80's, Alternative, Grunge... and Guitar, Concerts; SPORTS: Aerobics, Tae boe, Hiking, Yoga, Offroad, interested in Scuba Diving; SCIENCE: Psychology, Astronomy, Environmental science; OTHER: Reading, Writing, Literature, Poetry, Movies, Scrabble, Tourism, Contemplating nature, Internet surfing, Cultural contests and events...
if you check her interest there's nothng about history
tangerino :dinner served would you like salt and peppers
punchman: no thanks man it taste like something made by polisario
tangerino : who are this polisario
punchman : well first we make a moroccan formula and mint tea
tangerino : did you know about the biggest camel race
punchman :where
tangerino : i let laroussi to tell you
laroussi : yeeees maaaaan
to tangerino man you crazy but i did like the comment it funny
Randa farah not Lebanese she's Palestinian called doctor randa farah you gonna confuse the boys man or you made it on purpose
stop making jokes cause this guys are serious
Thanks "punchman" for the history line.
But I am sorry, wherever does it say that Palestine ever existed as a state, as you claimed earlier?
Or maybe that was just a joke too?
M6's throne day speech highlights.
"We are most keen to see this agency represent the best illustration of our national mobilization and of our tireless action to give to our conception of the integrated development of these provinces its full scope, in the frame of our national unity, our territorial integrity and regional democratic evolution. Actually, it is in accordance with this vision and these principles that we have accepted the United Nations draft framework agreement, as a basis for the quest of a definitive political solution to the artificial conflict raised around the Moroccan identity of our Sahara.
The more this national move was in tune with the increasing backing enjoyed, at the international scale, by the United Nations fair and peaceful option, the fiercer were the hostile stands of the opponents to our territorial integrity, openly opposing the UN option. These opponents went as far as adopting a partition thesis, unveiling by the same token all the flimsy arguments that were used to mislead the international public opinion, under the pretext of defending the self-determination principle.
As we have affirmed it to the whole world during our blessed visit to the city of Laayoune, We once again proclaim our unshakable determination to protect our territorial integrity and not to renounce an inch of our territory. In the same vein, we firmly stress the utter rejection of any partitioning thesis, meant to harm our sacred sovereignty and territorial integrity, as this thesis underlies threats and risks to balkanize the region of the Arab Maghreb and the whole African continent.
[...]
While the ultimate objective of our diplomacy is to make of Morocco a country with a perfected territorial integrity, an efficient actor in its regional and international environment, and an embodiment of the virtues of peace, cooperation and good neighborliness in the frame of mutual respect, it has, just like any other state, inalienable rights and vital interests which it cannot renounce and cannot concede, whatever the sacrifices needed are."
"it is in accordance with this vision and these principles that we have accepted the United Nations draft framework agreement", M VI said in his speech.
It sounds as if the Moroccans defends their autonomy proposal as based on James Baker's drafted framework agreement. Clearly interesting. To me that enhances the fact that there is nothing new with Morocco's proposal.
Glad to hear it though from "the horse's mouth".
But, as far as I have understood the autonomy proposal returns even less power to the Saharawi people than the drafted framework agreement.
Thanks Ali for the quotes!
it seems bad news is creeping at polisario from everywhere counties are withdrawing it recognition of polisario bad news from the camps of shortages of food and medicine
malnutrition is wide spread 80% of the population mostly pregnant women &children
and from the king speech it was clear massage to polisario and the region that morocco is not about to compromise on it sovereignty
mu conclusion is polisario is fighting a losing battle
Anon,
The most recent news regarding recognition of the SADR was that a state was re-establishing its ties. Prior to that, it was that a state's lower house moved to recognize it.
As written to Tangerino elsewhere:
(From 1946:) From the last speeches made by the parliament, the United Kingdom won't budge on indepedence for India; the Indian National Congress is fighting a losing battle...
-JAK
Where are the posts? I heard the Scandinavian welfare states made people lazy, but this is ridiculous!
I'm not one to talk, admittedly. But I'm addicted to analysis and the only fix is more Western Sahara Info!
Well, the downside to welfare states is you need to work a lot to scrape past taxation ... no such thing as free Western Sahara analysis. But I'll be back ASAP. You keep posting until then -- Manhasset II is just around the corner, and I bet that villa warrants another look.
As the initiator of this little spat (with some help from my host here) I'll respond to ali's initial comments (I've been away for a bit).
First, vague and subjective? Probably, but then I was commenting on a blog, not writing an academic paper. To engage first in the absurdity of the suggestion that a jobless youth might support the idea of an independent Casablanca, well, having visited it once and been far from impressed, perhaps Morocco would be well shot of it. The other parts of Morocco I saw were so much nicer. But my days of holidaying in this part of the Maghreb are probably over (short of the monarchy being replaced by a republic that is less rabid about Western Sahara being part of Morocco, in the same way that the French once insisted that Algeria was physically part of France).
As for the Polisario and the camps, first, I wouldn't claim the Polisario are saints. They even admit that in the early days of exile they acted repressively and that this was a mistake. No doubt there are more recent episodes that they'd rather not admit to, but that would hardly make them unique in the annals of governmental bad behaviour. Hell, my own government is "rendering" people to foreign countries for torture at the behest of the CIA. Show me a country without any repression and I'll show you a country without a government.
The point here is not whether the Polisario are saints - they're not. But anyone who points to Polisario abuses as an argument in favour of the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara is on dangerous ground, given Morocco's appalling human rights record in Western Sahara and also in Morocco itself. This argument is a red herring. The point is that Morocco invaded a territory with a population who didn't want to live under Moroccan control, and has since denied the occupied population any self determination at all. The Autonomy Plan looks like a sham to anyone who isn't an ideological supporter of Morocco.
As for my view that the Polisario enjoys widespread popular support in the camps, this is based on my own experience of spending time in the camps with the exiled Sahrawi. What is very apparent to me is the appetite that the Sahrawi have for independence. I can only use my judgment to decide whether what I'm seeing is genuine support for the Polisario or whether it's stage managed for my benefit. Whatever people's misgivings about the way the camps are run, the exiled Sahrawi do seem to see the Polisario as the only means of delivering what they want, which is to return to their homes in an independent Sahrawi state. Exiled Sahrawi have openly disagreed with the Polisario in my presence, when they have argued for an immediate return to war to liberate their homeland. The Polisario at present does not favour a return to conflict, although this may change once they've been well and truly sold out by the international community as a result of the endorsement of the Autonomy Plan. Algeria will probably attempt to veto a return to conflict, but there is the possibility of unrest in the camps if frustration boils over and the exiled Sahrawi demand a return to conflict against the Polisario's wishes.
I can only tell you what I've seen and heard during my four visits to the region, during which I've spent some weeks in the camps and many more in the Polisario-controlled Free Zone.
As for conditions in the camps, they aren't great. But I've seen ordinary towns and villages across Africa and the Middle East where conditions were no better. There are problems with food shortages and the general precarious nature of life in exile, but the camps have been there so long that they are essentially towns - just like the Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan that I visited in 1990 (in fact I was struck by the similarities).
The idea of the camps as a human shield is nonsense. Is ali suggesting that Morocco would or should attack the camps, located on Algerian soil, were it not for the presence of the civilians? These are not hostages held against their will by the Polisario, but refugees kicked out of their homeland by an invading foreign power.
To try and dismiss the Polisario by citing poor human rights records and corruption is a diversion. The reality or otherwise of human rights abuses and corruption in the camps (and I'm not qualified to confirm or deny the existence or extent of either) is not particularly relevant to issue of whether or not Morocco's occupation of part of Western Sahara (and it is only a partial annexation) should be endorsed by the rest of the world. We can play tit for tat with corruption and torture stories - have you taken a look at the Amnesty reports for Morocco, or have the Moroccan authorities blocked the Amnesty website?
Post a Comment