The article is partially biased against the US-Morocco agreement, underlyingly stating that it is the conflict is an issue that can be resolved by the EU. The Trump administration considers the Moroccan compromise of extended autonomy for the Sahara serious and credible and that it can constitute a solid basis for negotiations and permanent peace. What is certain is that the accord will mark a major turning point for the region both politically and economically to the extent that the Biden administration will find it hard to change.
This is an interesting and objective article. But I wonder why Ana Palacio, who is a respectable international diplomat, does not speak about the Moroccan Sahara knowing that the Hague International Court of Justice had decided in 1975 that The so-called Western Sahara was never an inhabited desert land and has historically been a Moroccan territory and its people have always had allegiance to the Moroccan king. Historically, the Sahara has never been an independent State.
Also the author forgot to mention the various links between the Polisario Front and the Al-Qaeda in the :aghreb terrorist groups, and the danger that they pose to North Africa and Western Europe.
As an international lawyer I find Mr. Ennaji's comment illustrative of the distorted view of the conflict over Western Sahara held by some Moroccans and their allies. In fact the International Court of Justice in 1975 held just the OPPOSITE of what he has claimed. It first held, in the Western Sahara Case, that Western Sahara was not terra nulls, or uninhabited, prior to the Spanish colonization, but rather that it was inhabited by nomadic tribes which were socially and politically organized. (paras 81 to 83). After thoroughly analyzing Morocco's claims of "historic ties" to the territory, it found those claims to be "far-flung, spasmodic and often transitory" and concluded that there was a " paucity of evidence of actual display of authority unambiguously relating to Western Sahara" on the part of Morocco, which negated its claim to "effective occupation" of the territory in pre-colonial days. (para 101) It concluded that the material provided by Morocco "does not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and [Morocco]."(para 107). Consequently, by a vote of 14 to 2, the Court concluded that the information and evidence before it ". . . did not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco . . ." Unfortunately, on the very day the Court's decision was published King Hassan lied to the people, claiming falsely that the Court's decision supported Morocco's claim, and this lie has been perpetrated ever since. Moroccans, you don't have to believe me, READ THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF! It is on the internet.
As far as Ms. Palacio's comments are concerned, it would be laughable how biased and untrue they are if it were not for the fact that comments from so-called "reputable sources" are widely believed by an unsuspecting public. If you really want to know about the issues involved in this dispute, I suggest you read the two reports issued by the Bar Association of the City of New York on the legal issues involved in the conflict: the use of the natural resources of the territory by Morocco and the right to self-determination of the people of the territory. You will soon learn that Morocco is NOT complying with international law in its use of the phosphates, fishery resources or other resources of the territory, and has stifled the attainment of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.
Western sahara has never been moroccan.morocco itself was a kingdom that ruled only in merrakech murruecos in spanish and that s why morocco gets its name from merrakech.now you re a professor and you try to lie to the world.let s talk about moroccan cities occupied by spain for iver 600 years.why don t you try to free those cities?oh i forgot spain will chew your asses in 5 minutes.have you ever met a real sahraei.they have nothing similar with moroccans.moroccans have no pride they sell their daughters and kids to tourist pedophies to make a dirham or two.sshrawi dont do thisvkind of business.stop lying causebin 1975 you divided the sahara with mauritania.now if it really was a moroccan territory why womauritan give half of it to mauritania?if you answer this question i will give you algeria as a gift.
A proper reckoning with the past is long overdue for Europe's former colonial powers. But while toppling statues may be justified, it is more important for Europeans to understand how the political, economic, and social legacy of colonialism still operates today.
trace the ongoing social, economic, and political consequences of the centuries-long exploitation of Africa.