March update
I apologize for the slowdown in posting, which unfortunately looks to be permanent (nothing to do with the strike). Let us note with a yawn that a fourth pointless ceremony of the Manhasset cargo cult is beginning soon, and that:
- Anna Theofilopoulou has written yet another must-read article on why the UN’s peace process is in fact neither peace nor process.
- International recognition of Kosovo’has spawned a lot of comparisons with Western Sahara, pro and con, good and bad, but most of them awesomely uninformed (like when a UPI “expert” speaks of the Western Sahara as a problem of “Berber unrest”).
- A policeman has been killed in Morocco, in unclear circumstances. The government predictably blames Polisario, which denies any involvement. Either way, a group of Sahrawis have been arrested, and while Polisario probably doesn't want to go back to armed struggle, a lot of their sympathizers do. If things finally do go boom, in the absence of a credible peace process, don't look to Abdelaziz -- it'll be the angry young men wearing masks and making Molotov cocktails.
- The ASM’s sightseeing trip into hostile territory is supposedly still on for March 16, the day of the Manhasset talks.
- Morocco, meanwhile, is furious about Polisario's (previously mentioned) strategy to repopulate the areas east of the wall with Sahrawis returning from the refugee camps. Not that it poses any sort of military threat, or is legally different from Morocco's own construction in the parts of W. Sahara under its control, but it does undermine Rabat's official line that Polisario's territories are simply a UN "buffer zone" -- which Minurso insists they are not -- and embarrasses the government in the eyes of its people. Hence the sabre-rattling.
14 kommentarer:
NEWS FLASH! ;)
ASM:s "sightseeing trip" is off
Now who could have guessed that? ;)
Frankly it is not unexpected since this is what has happened on several occasions before.
You write that "Polisario probably doesn't want to go back to armed struggle". Well, Polisario is a mass movement and while the majority of its members (or at least a majority of the Saharawis in the refugee camps) seem to want to take up the arms, the Polisario leadership is not willing to go to armed war at the moment.
The congress voted against renewed hostilities, but again I would say that this is not really representative of the will of the people. The leaders are under strong pressure to take up the arms again, which also has been stressed on various occasions by the Polisario leaders themselves.
So, I would not say that Polisario doesn't want to go back to armed struggle. I would say that the Polisario leadership does not want this.
Ah, well that's a shocker.
About Polisario, I agree that many/most refugees seem keen on war, and I was talking about the Polisario leadership.
By the way, I am not too impressed with Mrs Theofilopoulou's article
"Praise has been heaped on Morocco for dropping its demand for full integration and offering autonomy, which it had earlier opposed."
This is simply not true. Morocco presented a proposal on autonomy to Mr James Baker already in 2003. "The new autonomy plan presented by Morocco in 2007 is even more regressive than the plan presented in 2003", wrote Mr Carlos Ruiz Miguel in an analysis for GEES last year.
Mrs Theofilopoulou also seems to criticize the parties "winner-take all stances", but proposes nothing as alternative. I wonder what would please her. A shared sovereignty over Western Sahara maybe? No, that is not her goal. She is heading directly for Moroccan rule, as you will see later on.
Mrs Theofilopoulou questions the parties "willingness to cooperate with the United Nations to resolve the conflict", since any the actions which might prove they mean what they say have been "absent.
"Do we have any reason to believe that any time soon one or the other or both sides will approach the negotiations prepared to do something that would break the stalemate?", she asks.
Now this argumentation makes me wonder if Mrs Theofilopoulou has read the proposal from the Polisario Front to the Security Council where they even suggest are willing to share the natural resources of Western Sahara with Morocco, should the kingdom recognize an independent Saharawi state.
She also manages to put the two positions against each other as if they were equal opposites:
"Morocco will not accept genuine self-determination for the people of Western Sahara as an option; and Polisario will accept autonomy only as an option in a referendum in which it expects the voters to choose independence."
Genuine self-determination should include the option of independence. Mrs Theofilopoulou of course knows this, hence her writing about the Moroccan position. But given this, the Polisario stand is only natural and can not really be changed without violating international law and the right to "genuine self-determination".
If independence is not on the table, there is no genuine self-determination. It is as simple as that, and it might be good if someone could stand up and say so outright instead of this type of loose and bewildering "analysis".
In the end, in the second last paragraph, Mrs Theofilopoulou however get down to business and stress that "Polisario should be persuaded to accept that self-determination could take a variety of forms, and that pressing for the maximum – that is, full independence – could mean that it will never achieve self-determination at all", thereby implying that independence should be off the table.
She even suggests that the representatives of the Secretary-General need to "work discreetly and behind the scenes" with all parties concerned "to establish a definition of self-determination" and guidelines for achieving it "that would be acceptable to both Morocco and the Polisario" – and obtain their agreement before going public.
Basically Theofilopoulou says that the Saharawi people and Polisario should give up their quest for independence, and go with some kind of autonomy under Moroccan rule.
What is so thrilling about this, I wonder?
There is a popular sentiment in the camps towards war and, very wisely, the leadership keeps it head cool. There is an armsrace going on between Morocco and Algeria and when those two big guys clash there is an option Morocco is kicked out of the area. But the tiny Sahrawi armed forces won't be able to do that on their own.
Much more can be achieved by peaceful means, like re-populating the land.
Unfortunately this is a time for provocateurs.
I think you're being a bit one-sided in your interpretation. She makes valid points about the balance of strength, although I would agree that a few phrases are perhaps a little sloppy, and that the article is short on alternative suggestions. But who isn't?
The weakness of the articles I've read by AT is that they all seem to argue basically for the Baker Plan, presenting it as an ideal solution, which it was not. Neither side was happy with it, and in the end, it couldn't be adopted -- hence it solved nothing, and so clearly it wasn't an ideal solution, given political realities. (In this case, the problem was mainly that the Bush admin made a 180 turn and backed out, which certainly wasn't Baker's -- or AT's -- fault, but it still impeded and continues to impede any chance of success for the plan.)
The interesting point of her argument is that she makes a very strong case for why the present (non-Baker, negotiations) UN strategies are doomed to failure. One would like to see this coupled with some advice for how (and, even more, why) the various outside players (US, France etc) need to change their positions. That Morocco and Polisario (or Algeria) will not do so on their own is clear, and she makes that point herself. And if you want a solution, at least one of them must do so -- so which one? Well that's politics. No getting around it.
To argue -- as she seems to do here, at times -- that both sides need to change their stances is, however, beside the point. Yes they do, but at least one of them will have to change more. One side must break with fundamentals in its present policy, and that's what's at stake. If you remember the ICG reports, they were all warm and fuzzy on this, trying to argue for a middle ground -- but of course, there is no middle ground between two shores. At least one side MUST surrender on fundamentals, and the rest is window-dressing; the only other "compromise" is to force both of them to capitulation, instead of just one, but I'm not sure that that will be easier.
So, what will persuade others (US, France, EU, Spain...) to persuade their chosen combatant to drop his core demands? Now, that's the issue here. They themselves can only do two things: offer various political schemes (Morocco's autonomy stunt), prove their usefulness in other fields to gain new allies (like Morocco on migration & liberalization, Algeria on energy & terrorism), or increase pressure on the ground, militarily or politically (the mini-arms race between Morocco and Algeria, lobbying and the battle for recognitions).
van kaas -- First, I don't think there's a war coming, but even if there was, I don't think Algeria could kick Morocco out of Western Sahara. Nor could Morocco successfully invade Algeria -- both countries' armies are fitted for defense against each other and internal enemies, and neither seems to be terribly efficient in offensives (Morocco certainly wasn't good at anything much other than holding fortified ground in Western Sahara). Rather, it would be a gruelling, bloody stalemate, and a total disaster for the region. And the reason I think there will be no war, is that both sides know this. However, there is the chance that Algeria will start to feel enough military superiority sometime soon to again unleash Polisario, which -- as you say -- is itching for a fight. That's not very likely either, but the likelyhood increases for every new MIG fighter bought by Algiers, and Lord knows they're buying plenty these days.
As for the Moroccan-Algerian arms race, I've written a quite a deal about it earlier on the blog. Search or click the tag "arms", and you'll find most of it.
Interesting detail: I was recently shown an article mentioning that Algeria is in the market for buying a stock of stealth-type, ultra-fast armored recon cars suitable for long-range desert patrols...
Anyone could tell us what's happening on the Moroccan Mauritanian borders. Who are those people joining Morocco, are they sahrawi refugees or Mauritanian citizens ?
thanks
Sorry, don't know. And they could also be both...
"I think you're being a bit one-sided in your interpretation. She makes valid points about the balance of strength, although I would agree that a few phrases are perhaps a little sloppy, and that the article is short on alternative suggestions. But who isn't?"
One-sided? You think? But why should I take any stand in favour of fait-acompli and against self-determination?
I do not think Mrs Theofilopoulou is "a little sloppy" in her analysis and writing.
Mrs Theofilopoulou suggests the that Polisario "should be persuaded" to accept some kind of self-determination which does not give them "genuine self-determination". That is exactly the Moroccan standpoint.
Now either you give people the right to self-determination or you don't. Then you should say so straight out and not try to turn this into a kind of quasi form of self-determination.
The article is not only "short on alternative suggestions". It favours the Moroccan stand point, even though it is not completely directly outspoken.
An alternative stand-point could be to increase so called confidence building measures and open up the burm.
This would lead to a strong flow of Saharawis over the "defence-line", but off course is nothing that Morocco favours.
Another suggestion could be to widen the mandate of Minurso and allow it to monitor the human rights situation in both the camps and the occupied territories.
A first step could be for the UN's Human Rights Commissioner to publish its report on Western Sahara from 2006.
There are a number of things that could be done in order to improve the current situation and that could push the parties to reach an agreement to allow the Saharawi people to decide freely over their own future.
However, all solutions within the framework of international law must necessarily include the right to self-determination for the Saharawi people, and that right includes the right to independence.
What Mrs Theofilopoulou suggests is to take a step back from this principle because Morocco, under the current situation, is not prepared to agree on self-determination and no major country is willing to step in and put pressure on Morocco.
Now this is nothing but real-politics and there is nothing new or original about this.
If you think that this is "one-sided", please explain why.
War is not likely, a lot of people agree. Yes, it is a common belief war is not likely. But common belief will not prevent war. On the other hand, taking the possibility of war into account gives the opportunity to avoid it. Furthermore identifying and exposing the lobby for war is important as well. But is there one?
The lobby for war in the camps is a very clear one, and well known. But maybe there are others too, hidden away under seemingly peaceful intentions.
Mrs. Theofilopoulou says "pressing for the maximum – that is, full independence – could mean that it will never achieve self-determination at all." What kind of remark is this? It can be interpretated as an example of USA pressure towards war: just take away hope and war is born.
Another example is given by Mr. van Walsum's government in Holland which approved the sale of three warships to Morocco. Armsdealers like war. Does mr. van Walsum give hope? No, and he keeps the situation as it is for armsdealers.
He could ofcourse propose an option to provide autonomy to Morocco's “southern provinces,” within the framework of a Magreb federation or union. Just like the European Union was driven by a desire to prevent another European war. The same could be done in the Maghreb and dutch diplomats should know it the pattern to work on very well - but instead we have an armsdeal!
Van Kaas writes that Mr van Walsum could "propose an option to provide autonomy to Morocco's 'southern provinces,' within the framework of a Magreb federation or union. Just like the European Union was driven by a desire to prevent another European war."
Now this is of course a possibility. van Walsum is free to do any crazy act he likes. But, building a Maghreb federation on the occupation of Western Sahara is not comparable to the construction of the EU. No territory was forced into another in the latter process.
On the contrary. It was in order to prevent new wars of conquest that the EU originally was founded. Not in order to impose someone's sovereignty on other people.
By the way. The odds for war seem to be improving with Moroccan military exercises in the region of Ausserd.
Indeed, building a Maghreb federation, or association or whatever, on the occupation of Western Sahara is not comparable to the construction of the EU. But just as the construction of the EU is only possible without force, and with respect for all circumstances, it can not be a tool to impose someone's sovereignty on other people.
But ofcourse, for Sahrawi readers one should not say : "propose an option to provide autonomy to Morocco's southern provinces, within the framework of a Magreb federation or union" but "propose an option to provide independence of Western Sahara, within the framework of a Magreb federation or union".
PLEASE
CAN YOU ENTER IN MY BLOG IN ORDER TO TAKE THE FLAG OF YOUR COUNTRY AND IT IS WRITTEN IN MY MAP OF VISITORS?
THANK YOU
lefobserver.blogspot.com
Post a Comment