The flying Dutchman
Someone (thanks!) sent me this, which is a translation of a May 24 interview with the UN Secretary-General's personal envoy Peter van Walsum from a Dutch newspaper called NRC Handelsblad. I have not been able find a full version online, and I can not vouch for the translation, but hopefully van Kaas in comments can be persuaded to look into the matter so we won't be forced to rely on anonymous well-wishers. [UPDATE: interview real, translation okay] Anyway, very, very interesting, if it holds true: frank responses to unusually well-informed questions.
Curiously, van Walsum seems determined to present himself as rather clueless and uninvolved. Repeatedly, he claims he has no idea where the negotiations process is at now -- "[a]ctually I have no idea"; nor does he have any idea what the Secretary-General (his boss) thinks about his latest report. But the most surprising part is rather his suggestion that the parties should be forced to experiment with autonomy because "[i]f it does not work, they can go back to the initial position without nobody loosing anything." Is he a total naïf? Has he not been paying attention to anything that has happened during 33 years of conflict? It is hard to believe that anyone with the slightest interest in this conflict can imagine that you can just waltz back and forth with the fundamental principles of the conflict in either direction: it took Morocco 13 years of grinding labor to be able to backtrack on its approval of a referendum, and it's still not entirely safe in its new anti-vote position. Perhaps this is a suggestion you'd expect from a total newcomer to the conflict, the casual newspaper reader who caught a 100-worder about Western Sahara, but from the Secretary-General's personal envoy? Should we laugh, or cry, or wonder why he's saying something he can't possibly believe?
Yet, he does come across as a likeable fellow overall, and he makes several interesting points which should have been more frankly discussed by UN officials from the start. This concerns, for example, the stronger legal case of POLISARIO, the stronger international backing of Morocco, and the very active involvement of Algeria. He also points out that while POLISARIO is foaming at the mouth over him saying that independence presently seems unrealistic, it has not yet formally demanded his replacement. Isn't that interesting?
Here's the whole thing, as it was handed to me:
UPDATE I: I have been scooped. A very interesting take, from a whole other angle, by Sahara-Watch.The negotiations in the conflict about the Western Sahara between Morocco and the independence movement Polisario under supervision of the UN are ‘a farce’. That says Peter van Walsum, the personal envoy of the UN-secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and mediator in the conflict in an interview with this newspaper. About speculations about his leave as UN-mediator van Walsum says: “I always have said to Morocco and Polisario: If you have enough of me, you just write a letter to the secretary-general. Then the problem will be fixed in a minute”. Van Walsum reacts with this comment on the severe critics which he received by Polisario and Algeria, which supports the movement for independence. Last month, van Walsum called the referendum for independence of the Western Sahara ‘unrealistic’. Since then he became persona non grata for Polisario and the negotiations stopped. The main part of the Western Sahara was occupied by Morocco 33 years ago. According to van Walsum, talks about independency are of no use, since the Security Council from the start on never was willing to use military violence to force Morocco to accept this option. By rejecting the option of independence, van Walsum had hoped that Polisario would have chosen for hard negotiations on a form of autonomy of the region. The UN-mediator says he has no idea whatsoever how the talks will be continued and what his role in the negotiations will be.
He would have violated the image of the UN. Made him self impossible as negotiator. Undermined his neutrality. Made a joke out of human rights. Seldom a personal envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN was so heavily attacked as van Walsum. The Dutch diplomat must mediate in the conflict about the Moroccan occupied Western Sahara, but since a couple weeks he has been declared persona non grata by the independence movement Polisario and Algeria. Van Walsum lies under fire because he has given the Security Council, apart from the report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, his frank opinion that negotiations concerning an independent Western Sahara are ‘unrealistic’. Morocco and Polisario have fruitlessly bickered as from 1991 who should given voting power in a referendum concerning the future of the area. As from 2004 Morocco rejected a referendum concerning a possible independence and came with a proposal for autonomy under Moroccan flag. Polisario hold to a referendum concerning independence. But according to van Walsum discussions have little sense, because the Security Council will never force Morocco to accept a referendum concerning an independent Western Sahara. Now the negotiations stopped. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is silent in all languages concerning the file. The good mood of van Walsum (73), a tall slim figure, seems not to have suffered under the circomstances. In his house in The Hague, beside a thermos with coffee, he explains in detail three years negotiating for the Western Sahara.
Q – Did you force the situation because you didn’t like to go on as mediator?
A - I cannot say that I have detonates the matter in order to get out myself, but on the other hand I did not think: take care, you make yourself impossible. I got the feeling that I had been put down here to keep the matter going on indefinitely. Of all sides I got to hear: Go on, stick on to it! Things are heading in the right direction. I got an awful lot of compliments, especially from Algeria that supports Polisario. It was marvellous how everything went on. Then I thought: no sorry, something does smell very wrong here.Q - You felt abused?
A - I thought: if I do not give my opinion now, then in a year time I will feel incredibly abused.. Nobody believes, as it happens, in a solution. Morocco over-estimates its own position and Polisario and Algeria have no other aim but keeping on the negotiation process until the Security Council becomes so desperate that he agrees with a referendum under the Saharawi concerning independency. Polisario wanted to use the normal game rules of decolonisation and self-determination, because the Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony. Morocco has said for its part that those game rules do not apply because the area before the colonisation was theirs. When Morocco was starting to march into the area, Algeria has very expressly insisted on application of Chapter VII of the UN Charter which makes it possible to act military against aggression. By ignoring this call the Security Council has made from the start clear that he wants no use of violence. That has become a clear line, each time the Security Council has rejected the enforcement of a solution. That is holy in this file.
Q - Polisario and Algeria don’t longer want to negotiate with you. By pointing out so clearly your personal opinion, have you disturbed the negotiations?
A - All parties have met in Manhasset, a suburb of New York. That consultation was a mockery, a farce, a false game. 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. Of course I could simply have resigned, but I thought: let’s try to do it a bit different this time. If on my round talks with the Heads of Government I explain that this a dead end road. If I put this simply as it is in my report. A bit playing va banque, take a gamble. If you are so convinced that the negotiations are completely blocked, then it is not entirely crazy to give the developments a shot in a certain direction. The problem is that I don’t know which direction it goes on now. You say that they no longer want to have me as mediator, well that is fine with me, because I’m not that eager anymore to go on too. But I have always said to Morocco as well as Polisario: if you have enough of me, just write a letter to the Secretary-General. Then the problem will be fixed in a minute. But I didn’t get any news of the Secretary-General that he has received something of the kind. That means that I at this moment a really have no idea how the situation is. Actually I don’t know anything at all.
Q - They criticise you not taking serious the rights of decolonised people. They call you immoral.
A - I think that is such a terribly unfair argument. 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. That is to say: a deadlock with no prospects. Polisario is 33 years in the camps. Is it morally fair to accept that another generation of Polisario children grow up in the camps? I suggest something else: try to convince Polisario to enter into hard negotiations for a serious and guaranteed form of autonomy under Moroccan flag. I have visited the Polisario camps, but I've never had the opportunity to ask the opinion of the residents about this option. I say: you must take into account the reality. Polisario has the legally the best papers, but because of the way the Security Council has chosen to act, it never was of any use for 33 years. My suggestion, but that is entirely my own opinion and certainly not taken over by the Secretary-General, is that the Security Council should call both parties to temporarily experiment with autonomy without independence. Maybe they discover that this is the only way out of the deadlock. If it does not work, they can go back to the initial position without nobody loosing anything. I think that is certainly not an immoral proposal. If Polisario wants to talk about autonomy than they have a very strong position in the talks. Morocco is desperately looking for legitimacy.
Q - You have your presented your opinion to the members of the Security Council separated from the report of the Secretary-General. Polisario and Algeria suggest: van Walsum is no longer supported.
A - I have not committed insubordination! The Secretary-General did in this case not put my personal opinion in the official report. He left it out to avoid whatever kind of sensitivity. Quite logically, I found that regrettable, but that does not automatically means a disagreement. It obviously would be weird if I was not able to report my findings to the Security Council. I had the freedom to report it to the Council and that was what I have done.
Q - In substance, there is no disagreement?
A - I must confess that I do not know. I do not know the reason why the Secretary-General did not want my opinion in his report to the Security Council.
Q – When you started as a mediator have you been in touch with your predecessor, the American diplomat James Baker?
A - Yes, I've met him in Houston and we talked extensively. He found it a bit incredible that someone took that job, haha.
Q – He seems to have been right.
A - Yes, but I didn’t hold on for seven years, I've concluded after two and a half years that it’s not working.
UPDATE II: Reuters chimes in with a report on this very well worth reading, with just a couple of minor and forgiveable flaws: the 1963 war did not stretch into 1964, and the Moroccan claims to western Algeria are by now ancient history, even if Rabat persists in refusing parliamentary ratification of the border for symbolic reasons. (Of course, being ancient history now didn't prevent the irredentist lunacy of the Moroccan 50s/60s from affecting Algeria's initial involvement in Western Sahara, and it seems to have remained an important influence on Mouradia policy-making well into the 80s. But the article seems to say that Morocco is still actively pushing for annexation of western Algeria, and this is plain wrong.)
UPDATE III: More than 24 hours have passed, and still not a word of comment from either Morocco, Algeria or Polisario. As far as I'm concerned, anything that manages to shut them all three up is worthy of respect.
31 comments:
To me this looks like a very good translation at first sight. I only just read it in dutch and I'm suprised to see it in english so soon.
The interview is made by Steven Adolf who is a correspondent for Spanish and Moroccan affairs for NRC. He had an invitation for the XII Polisario Congress in Tifariti but mr. Adolf did not go there. Mr. van Walsum also never went to the liberated areas. That's wrong in this interview: there is no mention of RASD.
If you don't mind I will give some more comment when I find the time.
Don't mind at all. Thanks!
oh god, so naif you are! or you want us to belive so, lol
wake up UN support the truth and the international legality, of mroccos historic right in his territory, belive me you are just wasting your time, in this blogs game, soon algeria will disapear, from internal problems, and polisario with! i'am talking about the next 5 years, you will see!
you can say that a little blue birthy told me this.
you are rediculous with your artile empty of meanings.
liberated areas? are you drank! in the UN cease fire it's a neutral zone, free from any military or civilian activity, so please put the other one.
So I would like to add only three remarks about what I think is missing in the analysis of mr. van Walsum.
1) RASD, the independent nation van Walsum thinks is not a realistic goal, does exist and is a reality right now, as far as I understand it. How would mr. van Walsum explain the difference between the borders of former Spanish Sahara and of the Moroccan occupied area? We don't know.
2) Autonomy for the Saharawi already does exist under Algerian flag as a temporary solution. Would the Saharawi want to accept autonomy under Moroccan flag as a temporary measure to be able to return home? The question is legitimate but the answer is clear: no, simply because Algerians are friends and Morocco is enemy. Mr. van Walsum's idea to "experiment with autonomy" needs a lot more attention. A proposal to experiment is always dangerous because the outcome could be positive but negative as well. In this case it could blow up not only a peace-process, and ignite war again and disturb the whole region but it would affect Europe as well. I think it is a sloppy and very unresponsible suggestion. My suggestion for an experiment would be to simply forget Algerian or Moroccan flags and grant those Saharawis autonomy under supervision of the whole region: Libya, Mauretania, Canary Islands, Spain, Algeria and Morocco. And make Layoune the Brussels of the Maghreb. This way there would be at least some safetybelts and security for all in the experiment.
3) Mr. van Walsum sees no solution because violence is not an option.
This worries me a lot. The UN should use mediators who can work with non-violent strategies, and train them accordingly.
Some europeans like to play with the geopolitics of our region, just like if they were playing chess or any harmless games. "let's make layoune brussels of ..." Ok, let's make Oslo a member of the european union, lol. I also want the norwegian government to share their oil revenues with the french, and let the spanish fishermen exploit their fisheries. The bad guys in the saharan conflict, are the europeans. It's them who colonized and dismembered Morocco, and when Spain was about to leave, they have left us kindly a bomblet called polizario as a souvenir. As long as the foreign powers keep dictating what should be done and what should not, the problems would only worsen. The white man's burden is still alive in the minds of so many people, I think.
Anon#1
Anon#1 wrote in a typical nationalistic reaction about Europe: "The bad guys in the saharan conflict, are the europeans. It's them who colonized and dismembered Morocco"
OK, let's repair Morocco. So.. what exactly is Morocco? What are it's borders? Who lives in Morocco? And one more fundamental question: Why is Morocco a good thing?
If you're suggesting Europe has to put Morocco back together we should know: How? By acknowledging the Sahara as Moroccan? Little chance.. Because of international law and all that, you see. But also because Saharawi are abused and mistreated and intimidated by Moroccans every day, so your fellow north africans would'nt like Europe to do that.
So another way has to be found.
Mediation in this conflict is a necessity, be it American, European or African, and it will work best if all parties acknowledge their own mistakes. There is not much time left for blame-games.
Interesting interview that mainly displays van Walsum's ignorance about the conflict.
"it took Morocco 13 years of grinding labor to be able to backtrack on its approval of a referendum, and it's still not entirely safe in its new anti-vote position"
Now this is not quite true. Morocco has not abandoned the idea of a referendum, only ruled out the option of independence, and something that is often overlooked both politically and in media.
The Moroccan annexation proposal includes a referendum, but only with one option: yes or no to autonomy under Moroccan rule.
Commenting on Van Kaas" remarks on VW's interview and not on the interview itself that I found to be quite empty, simply because all he does in it is blame this tragedy on the superpowers in the security council... which is not entirely false btw...
1. If the rasd was really a state what is its territory then? the so-called liberated territories? How come there isn't a single western democracy that recognizes them then? Further were they really liberated, the polisario wouldn't be a government in exile now would it? and it wouldn't have to move people back and forth from tindouf and the other camps, umm that are in Algeria, to tifariti every time they decide to waste some money on some stupid meaningless festivities instead of putting it to good use to properly feed the 80000 people living in the camps.
2. I loved the autonomy under algerian flag comment, it was quite hillarious, unfortunately had it been a true autonomy under algerian sovereignty, the sahrawis would be free to move around the territory and look for jobs up north for eg. Not the case. Worse, these refugees are not even given their most fundamental rights as stipulated in all convention on refugees (census, freedom of movement, work opportunities, right of return to their homeland).
The humanitarian.
I would like to comment on those questions.
1. If the rasd was really a state what is its territory then?
That is a good question and the answer is complicated. RASD strives for the same borders as the Spanish Sahara once had. These are the definitive borders for the future. The actual borders are more complicated. The border with Morocco is pretty fixed by the Berm. The border with Mauretania is like other Saharan borders, dusty and lacking of clear signs along the line. The border with Algeria is different. This is a fixed line on the map too, but there we see this Saharawi population of RASD living in Algeria. The refugeecamps with citizens of RASD have borders with Algeria, complete with borderpatrol, within Algeria.
This looks like a form of autonomy to me. But hey .. I'm no expert.
So I should say: the aspired territory of RASD is clear, but for the moment the territory is flexible. A lot of time the administration of RASD is hiding in Algeria against brutal Moroccan attacks - another time it holds a congress in its own area.
It is true no western nation has recognized RASD but on the other hand a lot of African nations did. And we are talking about Africa here, don't we?
For the second question about "fundamental rights as stipulated in all convention on refugees (census, freedom of movement, work opportunities, right of return to their homeland)" I would say there are a lot of refugee-experts in the camps. The camps are visited by many thousands of foreigners every year. But no, not by Moroccans. Hey 'humanitarian' why not go there and have a look for yourself? If interested Moroccans are serious about it I'm sure a visit will be possible for them too.
more in arabic about Walsum interview with dutch newspaper:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/?id=62594
this is Moroccan MAP version of Walsun interview. they choosed what they want to say ONLY:
http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/box4/van_walsum_says_alge/view
till now no comment from Polisario
Van Kaas,
I am still not convinced about the existence or delimitation of the so called rasd territory... in this case, why limit itself to the western sahara then? and not have it go into the southern parts of Algeria, northern part of mauritania and the western part of Mali then? now that would really be a true sahraoui state wouldnt it? I find it weird that Morocco would be in the only country in North Africa not to have a natural extension onto the sahara... why does Algeria have it then when it was never an independant state in all of history until 1962 while Morocco that ruled Spain for centuries should be amputated from its saharan region?? It is about logic.
It is true there are a few countries that recognize rasd, some big african powers, but there a less than 40 or so countries in the world that have ties with them... and most of the countries that do, I never heard of (bunch of islands in the carribean and the pacific...) and have clear ties with the former USSR. No offense for Small Developing Islands.
Talking about brutal attacks on the polisario from the moroccans, i havent read a single UN report that talks about any moroccan raid on the polisario since the ceasefire in 1991. They simply live in Algeria in camps that are controlled by algerians so as to prevent them from freely traveling in their own country. Vice versa it serves the polisario to keep them there. That is not an autonomy. What to do they live from if it were not from algerian and some other countries' money, that is not a viable government then.. cant talk about autonomy then.
Regarding polisario's experts on humanitarian rights in Tindouf, well it seems they haven't been doing their homework right... or intentionnally... for the first step in a refugee situation is to do a census of the population in question that has never been ALLOWED neither by polisario nor algeria since 1975.. Intriguing isnt it.
I just believe that it is time to solve this problem and have these poor sahrawis live a better life out of the camps. Enough politics, think about the refugees.
The Humanitarian
In an interview for dutch radio mr. van Walsum said one extremely intelligent decision has been taken in the African de-colonisation era: to stick to the colonial borders. Because drawing new lines on a map always gives big trouble. So keeping the odd colonial borders for the time being was a wise decision. Frente Polisario agrees to it. Algeria does, and probably the whole of Africa; except the nationalistic and impatient dreamers of a greater Morocco.
What use is drawing other lines on the map of Africa like Morocco wants to do? I hear some say to restore some ancient empire, but why? Would they like to restore the rule of Morocco over Spain as well?
This expanding-the-nation-stuff is a practice we call imperialism, don't we? I think it's just a bad excuse for exploiting the neighbour's resources. Those two practices combined I would call colonialism.
Brutal attacks by Morocco on Saharawi did not occur since the ceasefire in 1991 in the Polsiario controlled areas indeed. But there are a lot of brutal attacks in Moroccan controlled Western Sahara on Saharawi civilians. It is an big issue in the peacetalks but Mr. van Walsum did not address the item.
This very moment a lot of students in Marrakech suffer very badly because of brutal attacks. Not only Saharawi by the way. But all are of the opinion Western Sahara deserves the right to choose upon independence.
I think Frente Polisario is ready to agree to monitoring the human rights situation in the camps. When will Morocco agree to monitoring human rights in Morocco and in particular the part of Western Sahara which they control?
What I know ,
Mr.walsum should know that colonisation has no time limit but a sure end .Morocco's claims half of Algeria ,all of the Western Sahara ,Mauritania and part of Senegal.
To those trying to preserve the King's pride ,should ask themselves why did Morocco agree to give half the Western Sahara territory to Mauritania,and only whimpers about it's spanish colonized lands?
why limit itself to the western sahara then? and not have it go into the southern parts of Algeria, northern part of mauritania and the western part of Mali then? now that would really be a true sahraoui state wouldnt it?
Yes, but Polisario has (despite an ethno-nationalist image) never made a legal claim to a "true sahraoui state"; rather, they've always insisted that they have no claims even to the Tarfaya area in southern Morocco, which is Sahrawi-populated and was ruled by Spain. The reason is that it was not part of the colonial entity "Spanish Sahara", but rather of "Spanish Morocco". Their entire claim rests on the recognition by the UN of their right to self-determination as a colonial people. Self-determination is not for "Sahrawis" as an ethnic group (or collection of tribes), but for "the people of Western Sahara" -- you will find this phrase in every UN resolution -- which incidentally happens to be a subset of the larger Sahrawi population, much like the people of Palestine is a subset of the larger Levantine Arab population. So of course the state would have a Sahrawi character, culturally -- however contrived --, but this is not what its claim to self-determination rests on. It rests solely on colonial borders and the fact that international law stipulates that every colonial territory has a right to determine in what way to end colonialism: through independence or through joining a neighbour or eg. through full equality and normalization within the ex-colonizer state. The problem is and remains that the people of W. Sahara has still not had the opportunity to make that choice -- a choice which could perfectly plausibly be to become part of Morocco, but that's another matter.
why does Algeria have it then when it was never an independant state in all of history until 1962 while Morocco that ruled Spain for centuries should be amputated from its saharan region?? It is about logic.
No, it's not. Were African borders about historical or ethnic logic, and the historical maximum borders of certain medieval sultans were for some reason chosen as the "natural" ones for Morocco -- a doubtful argument in itself -- then Morocco could just as well lay claim to Grenada as to Western Sahara.
What the conflict is about is colonialism, which, unfortunately, drew up bizarre borders all over Africa. International institutions had to deal with this in some way, and they chose to accept the de facto colonial borders as valid, since chaos would erupt if irredentism on ethnic or linguistic grounds were permitted. Morocco and Somalia (claiming a Greater Somalia, most particularly the Ogaden areas of eastern Ethiopia) are the only two African nations who refuse to acknowledge this principle, which has been the basis for African Union policy towards Western Sahara. There is as much or as little historical and ethnic logic to an independent Western Sahara as there is to a Kuwait independent from Iraq, or Lebanon independent from Syria, or Namibia independent from South Africa, and so on; and they have equally strong case for independence, should that be what the people of the colonially-defined territory desires.
Legally, it's as simple as that. Then politics, balance-of-power and other unpleasant aspects of reality muddle the picture a bit, but there's simply no denying the legal solidity of the Sahrawi case for self-determination (which, I stress, does not necessarily mean independence: but MUST mean a CHOICE of independence).
Morocco that ruled Spain for centuries, anonymous
would they like to restore the rule of Morocco over Spain as well?, van Kaas
Hello, everybody, I'm new to this blog, but please let me start by asking all of you to be serious in your statements.
If by the "rule of Morocco over Spain" you are referring to the middle ages, 11th century, Almoravids and so forth, this looks to me simply nonsense, because nor Spain, neither Morocco existed as such at that time. Almoravids (who, by the way, had probably its origin in what it is now Mauritanian dessert, not in current Morocco) conquered most of the south of the Iberian Peninsula and blocked the expansion of some Christian kingdoms (Castile, Portugal, Aragon) to the south, during some time at least. They didn't rule over any invented country that was simply non-existent at that time. Same applies to Almohads (except the remark about its origin, of course).
As Alle said in his last post, what this conflict is about is simply colonialism. Nobody cares about how old or how legitimate the current Moroccan dynasty is, or how far to the south or to the north some amir-al-Mu'minin extended its conquest who knows how many centuries ago. Morocco has no right under international law to occupy what until 1975 was Spanish Western Sahara, and since at least 1973 is considered by the UN to be a non-autonomous territory. That's all. The legal borders of this territory are clear to everybody. To further discuss on them is simply a waste of time.
Sorry for being so blunt, but I think that to accept lies as facts is what takes some people to also accept as "realistic" what it is not acceptable at all.
Hi Juan, Bienvenido!
My question was serious.
would they like to restore the rule of Morocco over Spain as well?
Compared with your historical information it may seem a silly question. Maybe I'm hurting Spanish sensitiveness, if so that's not intentional. I don't think this wish would be logic or realistic or feasable at all. I'm just curious about the desire.
If the desire to rule over the Western Sahara stems from dreams about the restoration of ancient empires I would like to know more about those dreams.
Those irrational ideas seem to have an important place in Moroccan politics. I don't think they are being discussed very widely. But I would like to know more about them.
don't worry about hurting my Spanish sensitiveness: I don't have any. In any case, if I had it, the role of Spain in this issue has been so shameful that my sensitiveness would have vanished long time ago.
My problem was only that accepting discussing hypothetical consequences in nowadays politics of a false myth, as is the one of Morocco ruling Spain for centuries, could entail certain legitimacy for the application of an entirely similar myth some 33 years ago: the one of a traditional rule of Morocco over Western Sahara.
Oh boy...
I have created so much fuss over my comments on morocco ruling spain, WOW. It seems I must have touched a nerve.
Regarding the almoravids as one of you mentionned they did indeed come from the sahara (today in mauritania) and they even made Marrakesh their capital (now Morocco) and they also did rule spain and portugal from there from the XXth century onwards, I forgot the name of the first dynasty that conquered spain in the VIIIth century. So that could be seen as Morocco ruling over Spain right? Since Morocco has been a kingdom for well over 1300 years I dont see why it would be a MYTH? Fair enough it was maybe not called marruecos or morocco but still... or maybe I should I say the almoravids, almohads, saadians, forgot the first one ;) ruled over what is now known as spain and portugal, to be politically correct. At the end of the day, they were all based in what is today Morocco. Sorry that is history, and I was taught all this in a big western university in a class called muslim spain FYI by an expert on middle eastern history (he wasn't moroccan btw ;) ).
Anyway, I meant in no way to say that Morocco has claims on spain whatsover... that would be absurd and unthinkable. Frankly I don't care about these two countries (no offense to any moroccan or spaniard), all I am into is getting sahrawis in the camps out of their miserable way of life.
Regarding visiting the camps, well it is not easy when you are part of an official body that deals with the issue. It is easier when you pose as an activist or a leftist. Too bad, It is all just propaganda.
The Humanitarian
Hola todos,
The myth of Morocco ruling Spain for centuries could change into a true historical fact if the word 'Morocco' is replaced by 'Islam' I guess.
The myth of a traditional rule of Morocco over Western Sahara does change into fact as well that way: ofcourse Islam ruled the Sahara - and that's a typical orientalistic truism.
So I wonder to what extend Moroccan policy defines Morocco to be the rule of Islam. Not only for touristic purposes I mean.
Anybody who is part of an official body that deals with the issue should have access to the camps. I would say: be serious about it and just give it a try!
Humanitarian -- Regarding visiting the camps, well it is not easy when you are part of an official body that deals with the issue.
While not wanting to absolve Polisario from their many real faults, just a question on this: what official body is it that has been prevented from investigating Tindouf? UNHCR, OHCHR, WFP, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and so on... they've all had multiple visiting missions there, and in the case of aid agencies, there are permament presences in the camps.
Ola!
"The myth of Morocco ruling Spain for centuries could change into a true historical fact if the word 'Morocco' is replaced by 'Islam' I guess".
Smart indeed, it is too bad that islam is not a form of government now is it?. Yes Islam was present in what is now known as Spain but how is it that a religion could rule a territory, organise its society uphold islamic laws and control its armies if it weren't for a form of governance in this case a serie of kingdoms ruled by dynasties?
Let me ask you this: the Ottoman Empire did spread from the East as far as China to the now algerian borders in the west (they were stopped on the now moroccan borders btw) they were even at the gates of Vienna up north, right?
Sure it was not the actual Turkey back then, but the the turks were the ottoman empire whether you like it or not. COME ON GUYS THE GREEKS, YES THE GREEKS!! Find me a person that is more proud of their culture and history than them and even they will admit it!!! ask a greek who ruled them for centuries they will not say hmm... the ottomans that you cannot call the turks because it wasnt known as turkey back then!! They will simply say the Turks.
Same for Morocco, call them Maures, berbers, arabs, whatever... but the traces of that empire are ever present both in the andalus and in todays morocco architecture wise, language wise, music-wise, food wise etc.... This is my point.
Man all this discussion over a small comment... u guys are really trying hard to minimize the existence of Morocco as a nation and a kingdom pre-colonial period. Seems it doesn't serve your purpose to have it exist pre-1884 or it just hurts your nationalistic pride.
One day you should take a break and go there. I have been and It has nothing to do with the descriptions you read on the net. What shocked me is that it was clearly on its way to becoming a middle income country if there is no drastic change. I have to admit they do have some poverty and social problems to tackle but still it is doing better by far than many other countries in the region. It also vibrates with so much life and openness to others that is rare in todays islamic world... and before you ask, yes! I have been to all the north african countries as well (except libya, I wonder why?).
I have also been to the parts that i have always read on the net as being occupied and i found them not that occupied especially dakhla: Kite surfing and windsurfing paradise at its best. You would never expect it in a place like that; Dakhla Attitude they call it. No kidding.
To sum up, You will be astonished of the depth and how ancient and diverse this country's history and culture is... clear signs of it being an old nation.
Oups, did I say too much positive stuff on Morocco? I am sure that I will be banned from this blog from here on! Man I should get a sort of honorary citizenship for this. Where are the Moroccans god damn it? I guess they are not very much into blogging must be the english part.
Man, we strayed so far from the initial discussion on VW's boring interview. Let's move on.
Adios
The Humanitarian.
Good morning/evening Alle,
Hi humanitarian!
"Where are the Moroccans god damn it? I guess they are not very much into blogging must be the english part"...
Well, yes...Moroccan bloggers, usually blog in arabic and frensh.
But you nearly said it: moroccans, from Tangiers to Lagouira are proud of their multicultural History. Muslims, jews, arabs, berbers, rbati's, oujdi's, sahrawi's, fassi's...The Moroccan Kingdom is a melting pot since centuries.
Most of them, I mean moroccans, know their History well and they know what separatism means.
Alle's blog is one of my favorite blogs even if I completely disagree with him about Moroccos Sahara.
Amina
Greetings from Rabat
Is Morocco a beautiful country? I don't know but once I spoke to a very patriotic Saharawi about it and he assured me Morocco is a very beautiful country.
But... This is not an excuse to invade neighbouring countries, ofcourse.
The culture and history of Morocco are very interesting too. But... let's have a closer look: how can we define Morocco? The language of the Moroccan government is Arabic. In Arabic the name of Morocco is: المغرب Maghrib, in english: the west.
So the name of Morocco in Arabic means something like "The West of the Islamic empire."
In plain english Morocco has clear international boundaries and is only 50 years old. But in Arabic it is thousands of years old and has no clear defined borders. Because of "Arabic culture" and Arabic customs. Beautiful? I don't think so.
Van Kaas@ Dit is gewwon racisme tegenover Marokko! We're not talking about beauty here, but about history.
What you're doing right now is neglecting the history of one of the oldest modern States in the arab world. This way of "treating" history is called: negationism.
Sorry Alle
Amina
"What you're doing right now is neglecting the history of one of the oldest modern States in the arab world. This way of "treating" history is called: negationism."
This is the problem of almost all Moroccans: They do not want to accept the historical truth that they are illegally occupying Western Sahara, and that they have no right to deny the Saharawis their right to self determination.
Even in Moroccan schools pupils are taught that the International Court ruled in favour of Morocco's claims on Western Sahara when the court in reality ruled against these claims and the ones from Mauritania.
If Morocco would stop with all these lies and allow a real and free debate about Western Sahara, it would be a good starting point for any lasting solution to the conflict.
Dear Amina,
You say I am neglecting the history of ... one of the oldest modern States in the arab world?!
What state do you have in mind?
المغرب or the Arabic West? Just plain English Morocco?
Or wait... maybe it's ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵖⴰ
Very modern indeed: Tamazgha!
amina -- choukran bzzeff, or however you say it in morocco...
van kaas -- actually, even in the technical sense, morocco has been a state (of some sort) for hundreds of years. the french did not treat it as french territory or a colony, but as a foreign kingdom under french "protection". the distinction may not have meant all that much in practical terms, but there was a legal continuity between the pre- and post-colonial states of morocco.
morocco's case for western sahara rested on an attempt to prove that this state extended throughout the disputed territories (plus algeria, mauritania etc) in the years preceding colonization. it was this argument that the ICJ rejected, and reasonably so -- centuries earlier, the sultan did rule w. sahara in so far as anyone did, but by the 1800s, it was way outside of his control.
In AD 1680 Sultan Mawlay Ismail got a fatwa with a permit to conclude temporary peace treaties with Christian states because this way it would be easier to get hold of weapons, needed because of the never ending jihad to expand his territory. On August 21 1684 a treaty with the dutch state was ratified by this Moroccan Sultan Mawlay Ismail who ruled in territory between the Senegal river and the Niger in the south, from the Tuwat oasis and Figuig in south-east and Oudja and Tlemcen in the east. So in this time the Moroccan state was recognized by the dutch who ruled at that time very complex areas worldwide linked by ships. These dutch transportation lines were often attacked by Moroccans, and not only the cargo was stolen but also sailors were captured and sold as slaves.
These times are long gone and a lot has happened. (Like the French occupation of les Pays Bas.)
People who think Moroccan relations with Christian states are still based on the fatwa of 1680 must be modern followers of Sultan Mawlay Ismail: Jihadists of a very cruel sort.
But fortunately we live in modern times. Most of us.
Hello All,
Juan is right in his assesement of no such a thing of a maroccan occupied Spain .One has to spell out the reality of things .
Here is another reality that seems to slip the King's memory ,The Houston accord which was passed between marocco and guess what The Polisario Front .Marocco never claimed the Spanish Sahara as long as it was occupied by Spain ,just like their feeble Island takeover debacle.
Simple situation called the only person I can dominate is my little sister .If Marocco has any pride left they should pack up and restore any Honor they have by leaving lands that is not theirs.
Maybe than they can focus on demanding the return of Melilla and Ceuta .
Alle,
As far as I understand the "legal continuity between the pre- and post-colonial states of morocco" is a monarchy headed by the Al’awid dynasty. The legal basis for the rule of this dynasty is in Islamic law.
The Al’awid rule the Maghreb, which translates into "the west of the Islamic world", and in this world they have also the legal responsibility for defending or expanding the world of Islam, or call it the war against the non-Islamic world.
When they call the continuity as a legal basis for the rule of WS, this continuity should also exist in the responsibility for the western frontiers of the islamic empire. And indeed till this day Al’awid rulers try to defend and expand the borders of the Maghreb - they just have to because of their responsibilities as direct descendants of the Prophet.
But hey.. these are old-school Islamic borders. An international recognized border may be something completely different.
I would say give this Mohammed VI the rule over the Maghreb like the Pope rules the catholic world. An do bussiness within international accepted borders. But that's probably too cheesy :-)
Post a Comment