USA backs annexation of Western Sahara
Look who's out of the closet:
UNITED NATIONS: The United States on Wednesday backed Morocco's offer of autonomy for the disputed Western Sahara as the best way forward but other U.N. Security Council members said independence must remain an option. (...)
After the council meeting, U.S. deputy ambassador Jackie Sanders read the statement she made in the council which noted Morocco's "serious and credible" initiative, making no mention of the Polisario proposal.
"We believe a promising and realistic way forward on the Western Sahara is meaningful autonomy," she said. "Morocco's initiative could provide a realistic framework to begin negotiations on a plan that would provide for real autonomy contingent on the approval of the local populations."
"We note that the Moroccan initiative is flexible, and provides for a referendum in keeping with the principle of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara," Sanders said.
In other news, the US will next month face a referendum of "yes, with autonomy" or "yes, without autonomy" to confirm the country's annexation as a southern province of Canada. This compromise solution has been backed by the Montreal-based North American Consultative Council, comprising several Canadian-appointed American citizens, which recently condemned the separatist putschists in Washington for refusing the popular will of returning the fictitious "pseudo-USA" entity to the Canadian motherland.
10 comments:
That sounds like a plan..The latter paragraph raises an interesting issue. This is a quote from Wikipedia: "Nevertheless, at various times annexationist movements in Canada have campaigned in favour of the annexation of parts or all of Canada by the United States". All major powers support Morocco's autonomy plan and view it as move forward and I think it is. High ranking Moroccan officials and including the King himself repeatedly said that "independence" threatens Morocco's "territorial integrity" and thus is no viable solution. The RASD maintains "independence" must remain an option. I feel this whole thing is going down the wrong path as armed confrontation might become the only solution either that or a change in leadership in both parties.
I feel this whole thing is going down the wrong path as armed confrontation might become the only solution either that or a change in leadership in both parties.
Definitely. Polisario has wanted it for a long time (because, let's face it, nonviolence & diplomacy turned out to be a complete dead end) but Algeria has prevented it -- so far.
Now that they're out of the civil war, rearming, and reasserting their regional role big-time, they probably aren't in the mood to allow a full scale foreign policy disaster against their only credible rival... Not that they would go for war, but some threatening noises or allowing minor Polisario-Morocco clashes just to make a point, is a distinct possibility.
Especially sensitive, since there's a power struggle heating up in Algeria now, with Bouteflika's term coming to an end -- and since his main forte is foreign policy, a loss on the Saharan front could cost him dearly as he tries to secure another one.
All in all, US policy is, whatever your opinion on the WS issue, completely reckless. This looks increasingly like another ideological all-in that Bush plans to leave his successor.
Do you remember what took place at Camp David in 2000. The "autonomy" offered by Morocco sounds pretty much like the offer made by Ehud Barak to Arafat in 2000.
* Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
* The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
* The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
* Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
* Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
* "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967
Was that what the Palestinians really aimed for all along? I don't think so but it was good enough considering the leverage they had and everything else we know today. Arafat was a man of struggle, a guerrilla commander not a peace man so to him settling for less than the whole thing was a failure in itself. Thousands of people died ever since and so many others simply fled their "country". So here we are today with a radical faction in power, and less land than 10 years ago as the Israeli settlements continue growing...Let go back to our main issue: WS. Don't you think that "autonomy" is not a good alternative to say 'war'. I believe WS could play an important role in the democratization of Morocco which in turn would grant it more independence, ie,the autonomous communities of Spain (Cataluña, Valencia, ...)?
Alle,
IT IS ideological. Give it a couple negociating rounds and it will be the "second coming out of the closet" .
Polisario would be told that it did not seize the opportunity. It got a "great offer" and couldn't take it. Morocco takes back the diplomatic initiative it had lost since Baker II and before. Polisario becomes a pariah, pressure on Polisario to make political reforms......you know how it goes. But nothing that really helps solve the conflict justly.
At least that's how I see it.
I don't believe anyone should have been surprise by the recent US stand. I was expecting it and was clear that it was coming...
Ali,
The Palestinian case is in many ways similar to the Sahrawi one, but the example you give is a little off for a few reasons:
1.) Polisario have always wanted the same thing: an independent (non-colonized) Western Sahara. The Palestinian leadership at various times throughout the 20th century have sought for a variety of incompatible goals (e.g. integration into Syria, a Palestinian state across all of Transjordan, a two-state solution, etc.) Camp David couldn't possibly have given them everything they wanted, as their desires have been and remain far more fractious than the Sahrawis.
2.) The borders of Western Sahara are clearly delimited by international treaties; they are inherited colonial borders and the African Union holds those to be inviolable. The borders of a modern Palestine were not and have never been decided and are open to negotiation (although they would generally conform to the pre-1967 boundaries.) Consequently, land swaps and offers of 97-98% of recognized borders are not outrageous, but realistic.
3.) The return of 160,000 Sahrawi refugees and the creation of an independent and non-occupied SADR in Western Sahara poses no threat at all to Morocco's continued existence. The return of millions of Palestinian refugees and the creation of a weak Palestinian state does threaten the existence of Israel, both in its Jewish national character and its security.
4.) Muhammad is being chauvinistic and pedantic by "offering" autonomy to the Polisario as the representatives of the Sahrawi people, but they have been generally law-abiding and have respected non-violent solutions conforming with international law. Ehud Barak was being genuinely generous and benevolent and Yasser Arafat didn't even offer a counter-proposal, and instead moved to start the Second Intifada prior to the end of negotiations.
Autonomy is, in fact, better than war, but it is worse than independence or whatever outcome would be the genuine will of the Sahrawi people in determining their own fate.
-JAK
Ali -- I'm sorry, but I see virtually no similarity at all between the negotiations at Camp David and Manhasset. There are certainly some interesting parallels between the two conflicts, but I don't think this is one of them.
Justin mentioned some ways in which they are different -- though I don't think I agree with his overall reading of the I/P situation -- and I would add that the political setting for the Manhasset negotiations is also very different. At CD both parties said they wanted a two state solution, at Manhasset, both parties stick to fundamentally incompatible final goals; also, at CD there were no Algerian envoys lurking in the background. And that is to just mention two things.
As for your other questions, a new post is up just for you.
While the USA backs annexation of Western Sahara, the Italian parliament voted on Thursday in favor of a resolution that demands the government in Rome to give Polisario diplomatic status.
The motion was presented by the vice-president of the Chamber of deputies (Congress) Giorgia Meloni and passed with a broad majority.
The recognition of Polisario "is a legitimation of an Arab and Muslim organization that has always rejected Islamic fundamentalism and the way of terrorism", said Mrs Meloni in a statement on Thursday afternoon.
too many expert from the outside world ,now this is how the moroccans want the goverment to deal probleme 1 stop any meeting with polizario 2, withrew the case from the united nation 3. strenthen the army with every tool finaly wait until the polizario fire the first shot and i let the rest for you to finish caue you all are expert
Anon,
That post is horrifying.
-JAK
The vote last Thursday in the Italian parliament has caused "concern" at Morocco’s embassy in Rome, writes the Italian news agency Il Velino.
Post a Comment