Ali El Aallaoui, Center for Nationalism Studies What future for the self-determination of the Saharawi people?
The Western Sahara conflict is one of the oldest living international conflicts, resulting from unfinished decolonization altered by a Moroccan occupation since 1975. Even though the UN orders Morocco to withdraw from the territories of Western Sahara, King Hassan II in November 1975[1], organized the Green March, with which he invaded Western Sahara in a double strategy, military by a gang of blood and civil on the other hand, to fill the places of Spanish settlers (who withdraw from the territory) without any consent of the Sahrawi people.
You have to know, despite the crucial importance of the question of Western Sahara on the level of the United Nations agenda[2] and at the level of the African Union[3], this question still mortgages the destiny of the Maghreb, and condition the regional stability in the Sahara and Sahel.
In this context, and at the age of globalization the opportunities to achieve a definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, it can be materialized by the UN respect of its commitments toward the Saharawi people through the organization of Referendum which has been going on since 1965[4].
To understand the reasons of the impasse still facing the question of Western Sahara, and why Morocco defies the international community, by blocking any democratic solution through a free referendum, it seems important to us, to briefly dissect the colonial history of Western Sahara and its people, before examining the geopolitical and geostrategic reasons behind the position of the great powers that hinder the respect of international law of the last colony in Africa.
1-The historical context of Western Sahara colonization
The Saharawi population became Islamized in the 8th century. The age of glory of the Sahrawi’s goes back to the Almoravid Empire. Indeed, The Almoravid one of the most important empires of the medieval Islamic West, an area defined here as al-Andalus (southern Spain and Portugal), the Maghrib and Ifriqiya (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and Western Sahara). The Almoravid Empire was the second of great empires which ruled substantial parts of the Islamic West between the tenth and mid-thirteenth centuries.
The indigenous inhabitants of Western Sahara are collectively known in Arabic writing as the Berbers, a term derived from the Latin barbarus that indicated someone whose language was beyond the pale of Graeco-Roman civilisation. Berber had a similar connotation in Arabic to the term ‘Ajam used for the Persians and other non-Arabic speakers in the Middle East.
The Almoravid empire which dominated the Maghreb from 15 century to 17 century, its roots and its origin came from Western Sahara and northern Mauritania, mainly from the area where the current Sahrawi tribes are located(such as the Arguibat, Ouled Tidrarine, ouled Dleim, Laarousiyine, etc ..).
The Saharawi people exist long before the successive invasions of the 20th century, before the distribution of colonial territories in Africa of the 19th century. It is a people made up of an Arab, Berber and African ethnic group, of the Muslim religion, who practice a moderate Sunnite Islam that is tolerant more than other Muslims countries.
As Western Sahara is the most livable part of the desert; with a high level of humidity and moderate temperate thanks to the influence of the Atlantic, the Sahrawi life passed between trips and routes through the desert, from the interior dunes to the Atlantic coast. They make up a town with their forms of production, based mainly on livestock, and an economic system, without currency until the arrival of the European invaders, based on material heritage and Barter.
The Saharawi people have their specific dialect, the Hasanía the only dialect in North Africa very close to the classical Arabic language. They share the same dialect and the same culture as the people of Mauritania different than the Moroccan culture.
As a result of the Berlin conference, held between November 15, 1884, and February 26, 1885, in which no African country was represented, the first Spanish establishment was installed on the Río de Oro peninsula (today known as Dakhla). However, it was only until 1934 that the Spanish occupation was going to be effective, and only around the end of 1935 can the Spanish troops have pacified the entire Sahrawi territory, and Western Sahara become a total province of Spain in 1958.
It is from this moment that the territory of Western Sahara was part of the expansionist distribution, which the European imperialist powers made of the African continent at the end of the 19th century, due to the economic and political transformations of capitalism that demanded new markets and obtaining greater sources of raw materials for their capital accumulation processes. In fact, due to its geographical position at the gates of Africa and its western facade to the Atlantic, Western Sahara was, for centuries, the target of foreigners, especially European ambitions.
From the above, it is clear, that the existence of western Sahara people contrasts with the old Spanish propaganda, like the current one made by Morocco, in this order of idea Morocco and Spain managed to spread the image of Western Sahara as an uninhabitable desert, without resources and with a climate that devastates all life, and that is a territory without power or a political structure that organizes life.
But with the triggering of the decolonization of the countries under colonial occupation at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s, the Sahrawi people like all African countries benefited from the UN approach: namely the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the main reason that pushes the UN to keep the question of Western Sahara on the agenda of the non-self-governing territories since 1963[5].
2-The United Nations and the decolonization of Western Sahara
Just after its independence on November 28, 1960, Mauritania make claims on Western Sahara and at the same time, Morocco will do the same. Thus on December 17, 1965, the fourth commission of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, relating to the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
Indeed, the emergence of Mauritania, the expansionist aims of Spain(under the military dictatorship of Franco), and the expansionist desire of Morocco to establish the great Maghreb hampered the normal process of completing the decolonization of Western Sahara.
However, the resolution which was adopted on December 20, 1966, namely Resolution 2229[6], affirms the self-determination of the Saharawi people and the need of the Spanish regime to determine as soon as possible the celebration of the referendum.
Along the same lines the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on October 16, 1975, recognized inescapably and indisputably the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination according to the principles of international law in the matter.
Nevertheless, to block the legal judgment of the ICJ the three countries mentioned above(Spain, Morocco and Mauritania) are going to sign an agreement to share Western Sahara against the wishes of its inhabitants, and in opposition with the approach of the UN. Thus, the Madrid Agreement of November 14, 1975, transferred the administration of the Saharawi territory to Morocco the northern part, and to Mauritania the southern part of this immense territory.
But Mauritania after it failed in the war against the Saharawi combatants, abandoned all claims on the territory in August 1979 while recognizing the legitimacy of the SADR(The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic)[7] as the sovereign and legitimate state of the Saharawi people to exercise its sovereignty over Western Sahara.
And after 16 years of merciless war between the Moroccan army and the military troops of the Polisario Front[8], the two parties agreed to reach an agreement by signing a peace agreement for the organization of the referendum under the aegis of the ‘The UN and the Organization of African Unity(AU).
In this context, the Resolution 690(1991)[9], which finally established, under the authority of the Security Council, the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), strengthens the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination which is considered a principle of jus cogens[10].
The agreement signed between the two parties insists on following elements, such as the cease-fire, the presence of both Moroccan and Western Sahara military contingents in certain agreed areas, the release of prisoners and political detainees, the exchange of prisoner of war and then established a timetable for the process, which would have to conclude with the holding of a referendum, approximating a duration of 24 to 26 weeks from the time that the creation of the MINURSO.
But this euphoria within the United Nations came up against the entry into force of the list of voters eligible to participate in the referendum. Morocco as soon as it has discovered that the total of Sahrawi will vote for independence than he looks to another step by refusing any referendum option.
Therefore, Morocco was determined to expand and inflate the electorate, originally based on the 1974 Spanish census, while the Polisario Front was trying to keep it as close as possible within the parameters of the census. And since 1997 the UN has been at an impasse to celebrate the hypothetical referendum.
This how in February 2000, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan will speak openly for the first time on the need for a political solution to resolve this conflict through direct talks between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. In this context,
the Secretary-General of the UN to unblock the situation initiate a new political approach that’s why he appointed a new envoy to Western Sahara: James Baker. This last dared to carry out a plan which takes into consideration the positions of both parties. So it is in January 2003, he delivered to the parties and neighbouring countries the Peace Plan for Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara—also known as Baker Plan II—offering a similar division of tasks for the two sides during a four-year autonomy period to be followed by a self-determination referendum.
Morocco refuses this new plan like the initial plan, and then since that time the question of Western Sahara still in total deadlock, despite the few actions of the United Nations which have no real effect for the moment on the course of events.
Consequently, this turnaround of the UN dictated by geopolitical considerations and not by law. This situation consecrated the weight of the great powers on the final solution to the question of self-determination in Western Sahara.
3- The geopolitical game of the great powers blocks the decolonization of Western Sahara
During the Cold War, it is important to know that both superpower effectively regulated their behaviour towards each other with the desire to share and prevent crises that may give rise to a direct US-Soviet confrontation. In the sense that this never happened, one could argue that the superpowers were engaged in a process of continuous cooperation, defined as the regulation of their activities and relationships, to prevent a confrontation between them.
It is in this sense that we must understand the position that is maintained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, that is to say, the question of Western Sahara has been trapped in the approach of the Cold War, that of maintaining the status quo of unfinished decolonization without obliging the two belligerents, Morocco and the Polisario Front, to embark on the path of peace. This is why we had witnessed an intense and deadly war between the two parties during 16 years from 1975. It is a situation privileged by the two superpowers during the era of the cold war.
With the breakup of the USSR and the birth of the new world order, the situation will undergo a marked change towards more positive behaviour in favour of peace and respect for international law. Indeed, the “World order” is not value-neutral; any actual world order will reflect the values of its architects and members. And as this new order consecrates the dominance of the United States as the world first superpower, we are now witnessing the triumph of the values of liberalism, democracy, individual freedom and the principle of self-determination. In this perspective, the UN will take advantage of this situation to bring the Polisario Front and Morocco to sign a peace agreement to celebrate the referendum in Western Sahara.
Nowadays, the main cause in our opinion behind this dead-end must be sought in the game of the great powers, and in particular, those who have the right of veto within the Security Council, in this case, France, the United States, RUSSIA, the UK and China and the two multilateral organisation AU and EU, without forgetting Spain which remains the administering power of Western Sahara and Morocco occupying power as qualified by international law.
Indeed, due to the return of rivalry between the great powers in a new form, that of the economy with entry into China as the second economic power and the return of RUSSIA as an untouchable military power, the American order will become past and this is how the Sahrawi question will be returned to its starting point that of the impasse because each great power has interests and calculations different from the other power.
Before the bloody events of September 11, 2000, the Maghreb region and the question of Western Sahara do not fall under the strategic priorities of the USA and it is an area of influence of France. But from this date, the USA will be very present in the Maghreb mainly in the search for a solution to complete the decolonization of Western Sahara. It seems that the economic reasons are behind the new American approach.
To preserve its strategic interests, the USA will establish a certain balance which changes according to the American administration without breaking international law, this has been illustrated by the free trade agreement of 2004 with Morocco which doesn’t include Western Sahara. Without a doubt, the American position is that of wait and see waiting to choose the right moment for intervention within the UN or directly on the two actors in conflicts. But for the moment the impasse is preferable for the USA.
Morocco maintains strategic relations of cooperation and partnership with France, while the Polisario Front almost have no relations with France. You should know that France, the colonial power of Morocco before the latter gained its independence in 1956, tackled the question of the decolonization of Western Sahara contrary to the UN principle, and its positions on this matter were known, at least in the current context, unbalanced, biased and unwise, and do not adapt to the requirements of international legitimacy, nor to the weight of a permanent member of the Security Council since it favours the Moroccan occupation in place of respect for international law.
Great Britain it is distinguished by its pragmatic and consistent political attitude. As Western Sahara is in a geographic area which does not strictly enter its area of influence, therefore occupies a second place in its strategic priorities, it attaches very relative importance. The UK position on the conflict of Western Sahara is completely within the United Nations spheres, where they are rather neutral with sometimes an alignment towards the USA position on this question. However, after the Brexit, this position can be changed.
For RUSSIA and China, they prefer to adopt a low profile for all questions not directly affecting their vital spaces. Their roles are subject to contingencies and the ups and downs of the economic situation, they are for the most part in a neutral position and cautious in the post-Cold War order.
Regarding the EU, it maintains a lower profile and its position is still ambiguous despite the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the European Court of Justice had stated without any proof that the EU-Morocco free trade agreements do not apply to Western Sahara. So too the judgment of the European Court of Justice in 02/27/2018 has delivered a judgment ruling that the EU fisheries agreement with Morocco is only valid if it does not apply to the waters of Western Sahara. but despite these judgments, the EU aligns directly with the French and Spanish position on this subject, that of the Moroccan occupation thesis in Western Sahara.
As the successor of the OAU, the African Union over the years has maintained the same position of principle as that adopted by its predecessor concerning the question of Western Sahara. The African Union pledged to support the efforts of the United Nations to break the current deadlock, in the light of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Despite Morocco’s new membership to the AU, the latter continues to have the same position as before that of supporting the UN process, while respecting the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination.
The position of Spain is that of keeping the two protagonists Morocco and the Polisario Front in a conflict situation because it is the only remedy for its outstanding problems with Morocco, notably the question of Ceuta, Melilla, the islands in the Mediterranean, immigrations, and at the same time to punish the Saharawi people who preferred the path of independence to that of being under the Spanish administration.
From the above, it seems clear that the great powers are in favour of the impasse, as soon as the situation in Western Sahara had not yet entered a phase of war and bloodshed. So, therefore, the status quo is more preferable than the application of the law. This indicates a certain underestimation on the part of these superpowers and the SC of the weight of the Saharawi people. Consequently, the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination was postponed to another time this is the constant approach of the UN for many years.
Self-determination remains fundamentally an “objective” of the United Nations and an essential principle of the Charter. On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The United Nations’ highest court has ruled that the continued British occupation of the distant Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.
In this period of gloom and crisis of confidence between the Saharawi people and the UN in a world characterized by the volatility of international relations and the acts of unilateralism and intimidation of a certain State which plunges international law into problems, is the UN capable of respecting the decisions of its judicial body, the ICJ? in particular the decision of the court in 1975 on the question of the Sahara which insists Morocco, Mauritania and Spain to respect the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people through a democratic choice that of the ballot boxes: referendum.
[1] The Green March is a large march of more than 350 thousand people going from Morocco on November 6, 1975 to the Western Sahara Sahara, launched by the Moroccan king Hassan II with the aim of annexing this immense territory rich in phoshphetes, fishing and precious materials.
[2] Western Sahara has been on the list of non-self-governing territories according to the United Nations since 1963 when it was under Spanis rule. Western Sahara is the latest case of decolonization in Africa on the United Nations agenda. The General Assembly of the United Nations has constantly recognized the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence and has requested that they be able to exercise this right in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) which it adopted, containing the Declaration for the granting of independence to the colonized countries and people.
[3] the Council of Ministers of the OAU, at its seventh ordinary session, held from October 31 to November 4, 1966 in Addis Ababa, adopted resolution CM / Res. 82 (VII) in the territory under Spanish occupation. Considering Art. 2 of the OAU Charter, which made the eradication of all forms of colonization of the continent one of its main objectives, the Council of Ministers expressed its full support for all efforts aimed at the immediate and unconditional release of all African territories under Spanish domination.
[4]Resolution 2072(XX), question of Ifni and the Spanish Sahara, of December 16, 1965.
[5]since 1963 the territory of western sahara is inscribed on the list of non-autonomous territories of the UN.
[6]In its paragraph 4.” Invites the administering Power to determine at the earliest possible date, in conformity with the aspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Sahara and in consultation with the Governments of Mauritania and Morocco and any other interested party, the procedures for the holding of a referendum under United Nations auspices with a view to enabling the indigenous population of the Territory to exercise freely its right to self-determination and, to this end: (a) To create a favourable climate for the referendum to be conducted on an entirely free, democratic and impartial basis, by permitting, inter alia, the return of exiles to the Territory; (b) To take all the necessary steps to ensure that only the indigenous people of the Territory participate in the referendum; (c) To refrain from any action likely to delay the process of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara; (d) To provide all the necessary facilities to a United Nations mission so that it may be able to participate actively in the organization and holding of the referendum”.
[7]The OAU had reacted vigorously to Morocco’s intransigence to honor its commitments by admitting the SADR( into it in 1982.
[8]The Polisario Front, Frente Polisario, or simply POLISARIO, from the Spanish abbreviation of Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). The Polisario Front was formally constituted on 10 May 1973 at Ain Bentili by several Sahrawi university students, survivors of the 1968 massacres at Zouerate and some Sahrawi men who had served in the Spanish Army.
[9] Resolution 690(1991)of April 29,1991, approved unanimously ,at the 2984th session.
[10]Jus cogens concerns principles of rights considered universal and superior and having to constitute the bases of the imperative norms of general international law, the Vienna Convention of 1969 defines jus cogens in Articles 53 and 64.
The Western Sahara conflict is one of the oldest living international conflicts, resulting from unfinished decolonization altered by a Moroccan occupation since 1975. Even though the UN orders Morocco to withdraw from the territories of Western Sahara, King Hassan II in November 1975[1], organized the Green March, with which he invaded Western Sahara in a double strategy, military by a gang of blood and civil on the other hand, to fill the places of Spanish settlers (who withdraw from the territory) without any consent of the Sahrawi people.
You have to know, despite the crucial importance of the question of Western Sahara on the level of the United Nations agenda[2] and at the level of the African Union[3], this question still mortgages the destiny of the Maghreb, and condition the regional stability in the Sahara and Sahel.
In this context, and at the age of globalization the opportunities to achieve a definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, it can be materialized by the UN respect of its commitments toward the Saharawi people through the organization of Referendum which has been going on since 1965[4].
To understand the reasons of the impasse still facing the question of Western Sahara, and why Morocco defies the international community, by blocking any democratic solution through a free referendum, it seems important to us, to briefly dissect the colonial history of Western Sahara and its people, before examining the geopolitical and geostrategic reasons behind the position of the great powers that hinder the respect of international law of the last colony in Africa.
1-The historical context of Western Sahara colonization
The Saharawi population became Islamized in the 8th century. The age of glory of the Sahrawi’s goes back to the Almoravid Empire. Indeed, The Almoravid one of the most important empires of the medieval Islamic West, an area defined here as al-Andalus (southern Spain and Portugal), the Maghrib and Ifriqiya (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and Western Sahara). The Almoravid Empire was the second of great empires which ruled substantial parts of the Islamic West between the tenth and mid-thirteenth centuries.
The indigenous inhabitants of Western Sahara are collectively known in Arabic writing as the Berbers, a term derived from the Latin barbarus that indicated someone whose language was beyond the pale of Graeco-Roman civilisation. Berber had a similar connotation in Arabic to the term ‘Ajam used for the Persians and other non-Arabic speakers in the Middle East.
The Almoravid empire which dominated the Maghreb from 15 century to 17 century, its roots and its origin came from Western Sahara and northern Mauritania, mainly from the area where the current Sahrawi tribes are located(such as the Arguibat, Ouled Tidrarine, ouled Dleim, Laarousiyine, etc ..).
The Saharawi people exist long before the successive invasions of the 20th century, before the distribution of colonial territories in Africa of the 19th century. It is a people made up of an Arab, Berber and African ethnic group, of the Muslim religion, who practice a moderate Sunnite Islam that is tolerant more than other Muslims countries.
As Western Sahara is the most livable part of the desert; with a high level of humidity and moderate temperate thanks to the influence of the Atlantic, the Sahrawi life passed between trips and routes through the desert, from the interior dunes to the Atlantic coast. They make up a town with their forms of production, based mainly on livestock, and an economic system, without currency until the arrival of the European invaders, based on material heritage and Barter.
The Saharawi people have their specific dialect, the Hasanía the only dialect in North Africa very close to the classical Arabic language. They share the same dialect and the same culture as the people of Mauritania different than the Moroccan culture.
As a result of the Berlin conference, held between November 15, 1884, and February 26, 1885, in which no African country was represented, the first Spanish establishment was installed on the Río de Oro peninsula (today known as Dakhla). However, it was only until 1934 that the Spanish occupation was going to be effective, and only around the end of 1935 can the Spanish troops have pacified the entire Sahrawi territory, and Western Sahara become a total province of Spain in 1958.
It is from this moment that the territory of Western Sahara was part of the expansionist distribution, which the European imperialist powers made of the African continent at the end of the 19th century, due to the economic and political transformations of capitalism that demanded new markets and obtaining greater sources of raw materials for their capital accumulation processes. In fact, due to its geographical position at the gates of Africa and its western facade to the Atlantic, Western Sahara was, for centuries, the target of foreigners, especially European ambitions.
From the above, it is clear, that the existence of western Sahara people contrasts with the old Spanish propaganda, like the current one made by Morocco, in this order of idea Morocco and Spain managed to spread the image of Western Sahara as an uninhabitable desert, without resources and with a climate that devastates all life, and that is a territory without power or a political structure that organizes life.
But with the triggering of the decolonization of the countries under colonial occupation at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s, the Sahrawi people like all African countries benefited from the UN approach: namely the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the main reason that pushes the UN to keep the question of Western Sahara on the agenda of the non-self-governing territories since 1963[5].
2-The United Nations and the decolonization of Western Sahara
Just after its independence on November 28, 1960, Mauritania make claims on Western Sahara and at the same time, Morocco will do the same. Thus on December 17, 1965, the fourth commission of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, relating to the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
Indeed, the emergence of Mauritania, the expansionist aims of Spain(under the military dictatorship of Franco), and the expansionist desire of Morocco to establish the great Maghreb hampered the normal process of completing the decolonization of Western Sahara.
However, the resolution which was adopted on December 20, 1966, namely Resolution 2229[6], affirms the self-determination of the Saharawi people and the need of the Spanish regime to determine as soon as possible the celebration of the referendum.
Along the same lines the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on October 16, 1975, recognized inescapably and indisputably the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination according to the principles of international law in the matter.
Nevertheless, to block the legal judgment of the ICJ the three countries mentioned above(Spain, Morocco and Mauritania) are going to sign an agreement to share Western Sahara against the wishes of its inhabitants, and in opposition with the approach of the UN. Thus, the Madrid Agreement of November 14, 1975, transferred the administration of the Saharawi territory to Morocco the northern part, and to Mauritania the southern part of this immense territory.
But Mauritania after it failed in the war against the Saharawi combatants, abandoned all claims on the territory in August 1979 while recognizing the legitimacy of the SADR(The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic)[7] as the sovereign and legitimate state of the Saharawi people to exercise its sovereignty over Western Sahara.
And after 16 years of merciless war between the Moroccan army and the military troops of the Polisario Front[8], the two parties agreed to reach an agreement by signing a peace agreement for the organization of the referendum under the aegis of the ‘The UN and the Organization of African Unity(AU).
In this context, the Resolution 690(1991)[9], which finally established, under the authority of the Security Council, the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), strengthens the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination which is considered a principle of jus cogens[10].
The agreement signed between the two parties insists on following elements, such as the cease-fire, the presence of both Moroccan and Western Sahara military contingents in certain agreed areas, the release of prisoners and political detainees, the exchange of prisoner of war and then established a timetable for the process, which would have to conclude with the holding of a referendum, approximating a duration of 24 to 26 weeks from the time that the creation of the MINURSO.
But this euphoria within the United Nations came up against the entry into force of the list of voters eligible to participate in the referendum. Morocco as soon as it has discovered that the total of Sahrawi will vote for independence than he looks to another step by refusing any referendum option.
Therefore, Morocco was determined to expand and inflate the electorate, originally based on the 1974 Spanish census, while the Polisario Front was trying to keep it as close as possible within the parameters of the census. And since 1997 the UN has been at an impasse to celebrate the hypothetical referendum.
This how in February 2000, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan will speak openly for the first time on the need for a political solution to resolve this conflict through direct talks between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. In this context,
the Secretary-General of the UN to unblock the situation initiate a new political approach that’s why he appointed a new envoy to Western Sahara: James Baker. This last dared to carry out a plan which takes into consideration the positions of both parties. So it is in January 2003, he delivered to the parties and neighbouring countries the Peace Plan for Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara—also known as Baker Plan II—offering a similar division of tasks for the two sides during a four-year autonomy period to be followed by a self-determination referendum.
Morocco refuses this new plan like the initial plan, and then since that time the question of Western Sahara still in total deadlock, despite the few actions of the United Nations which have no real effect for the moment on the course of events.
Consequently, this turnaround of the UN dictated by geopolitical considerations and not by law. This situation consecrated the weight of the great powers on the final solution to the question of self-determination in Western Sahara.
3- The geopolitical game of the great powers blocks the decolonization of Western
Sahara
During the Cold War, it is important to know that both superpower effectively regulated their behaviour towards each other with the desire to share and prevent crises that may give rise to a direct US-Soviet confrontation. In the sense that this never happened, one could argue that the superpowers were engaged in a process of continuous cooperation, defined as the regulation of their activities and relationships, to prevent a confrontation between them.
It is in this sense that we must understand the position that is maintained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, that is to say, the question of Western Sahara has been trapped in the approach of the Cold War, that of maintaining the status quo of unfinished decolonization without obliging the two belligerents, Morocco and the Polisario Front, to embark on the path of peace. This is why we had witnessed an intense and deadly war between the two parties during 16 years from 1975. It is a situation privileged by the two superpowers during the era of the cold war.
With the breakup of the USSR and the birth of the new world order, the situation will undergo a marked change towards more positive behaviour in favour of peace and respect for international law. Indeed, the “World order” is not value-neutral; any actual world order will reflect the values of its architects and members. And as this new order consecrates the dominance of the United States as the world first superpower, we are now witnessing the triumph of the values of liberalism, democracy, individual freedom and the principle of self-determination. In this perspective, the UN will take advantage of this situation to bring the Polisario Front and Morocco to sign a peace agreement to celebrate the referendum in Western Sahara.
Nowadays, the main cause in our opinion behind this dead-end must be sought in the game of the great powers, and in particular, those who have the right of veto within the Security Council, in this case, France, the United States, RUSSIA, the UK and China and the two multilateral organisation AU and EU, without forgetting Spain which remains the administering power of Western Sahara and Morocco occupying power as qualified by international law.
Indeed, due to the return of rivalry between the great powers in a new form, that of the economy with entry into China as the second economic power and the return of RUSSIA as an untouchable military power, the American order will become past and this is how the Sahrawi question will be returned to its starting point that of the impasse because each great power has interests and calculations different from the other power.
Before the bloody events of September 11, 2000, the Maghreb region and the question of Western Sahara do not fall under the strategic priorities of the USA and it is an area of influence of France. But from this date, the USA will be very present in the Maghreb mainly in the search for a solution to complete the decolonization of Western Sahara. It seems that the economic reasons are behind the new American approach.
To preserve its strategic interests, the USA will establish a certain balance which changes according to the American administration without breaking international law, this has been illustrated by the free trade agreement of 2004 with Morocco which doesn’t include Western Sahara. Without a doubt, the American position is that of wait and see waiting to choose the right moment for intervention within the UN or directly on the two actors in conflicts. But for the moment the impasse is preferable for the USA.
Morocco maintains strategic relations of cooperation and partnership with France, while the Polisario Front almost have no relations with France. You should know that France, the colonial power of Morocco before the latter gained its independence in 1956, tackled the question of the decolonization of Western Sahara contrary to the UN principle, and its positions on this matter were known, at least in the current context, unbalanced, biased and unwise, and do not adapt to the requirements of international legitimacy, nor to the weight of a permanent member of the Security Council since it favours the Moroccan occupation in place of respect for international law.
Great Britain it is distinguished by its pragmatic and consistent political attitude. As Western Sahara is in a geographic area which does not strictly enter its area of influence, therefore occupies a second place in its strategic priorities, it attaches very relative importance. The UK position on the conflict of Western Sahara is completely within the United Nations spheres, where they are rather neutral with sometimes an alignment towards the USA position on this question. However, after the Brexit, this position can be changed.
For RUSSIA and China, they prefer to adopt a low profile for all questions not directly affecting their vital spaces. Their roles are subject to contingencies and the ups and downs of the economic situation, they are for the most part in a neutral position and cautious in the post-Cold War order.
Regarding the EU, it maintains a lower profile and its position is still ambiguous despite the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the European Court of Justice had stated without any proof that the EU-Morocco free trade agreements do not apply to Western Sahara. So too the judgment of the European Court of Justice in 02/27/2018 has delivered a judgment ruling that the EU fisheries agreement with Morocco is only valid if it does not apply to the waters of Western Sahara. but despite these judgments, the EU aligns directly with the French and Spanish position on this subject, that of the Moroccan occupation thesis in Western Sahara.
As the successor of the OAU, the African Union over the years has maintained the same position of principle as that adopted by its predecessor concerning the question of Western Sahara. The African Union pledged to support the efforts of the United Nations to break the current deadlock, in the light of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Despite Morocco’s new membership to the AU, the latter continues to have the same position as before that of supporting the UN process, while respecting the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination.
The position of Spain is that of keeping the two protagonists Morocco and the Polisario Front in a conflict situation because it is the only remedy for its outstanding problems with Morocco, notably the question of Ceuta, Melilla, the islands in the Mediterranean, immigrations, and at the same time to punish the Saharawi people who preferred the path of independence to that of being under the Spanish administration.
From the above, it seems clear that the great powers are in favour of the impasse, as soon as the situation in Western Sahara had not yet entered a phase of war and bloodshed. So, therefore, the status quo is more preferable than the application of the law. This indicates a certain underestimation on the part of these superpowers and the SC of the weight of the Saharawi people. Consequently, the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination was postponed to another time this is the constant approach of the UN for many years.
Self-determination remains fundamentally an “objective” of the United Nations and an essential principle of the Charter. On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The United Nations’ highest court has ruled that the continued British occupation of the distant Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.
In this period of gloom and crisis of confidence between the Saharawi people and the UN in a world characterized by the volatility of international relations and the acts of unilateralism and intimidation of a certain State which plunges international law into problems, is the UN capable of respecting the decisions of its judicial body, the ICJ? in particular the decision of the court in 1975 on the question of the Sahara which insists Morocco, Mauritania and Spain to respect the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people through a democratic choice that of the ballot boxes: referendum.
[1] The Green March is a large march of more than 350 thousand people going from Morocco on November 6, 1975 to the Western Sahara Sahara, launched by the Moroccan king Hassan II with the aim of annexing this immense territory rich in phoshphetes, fishing and precious materials.
[2] Western Sahara has been on the list of non-self-governing territories according to the United Nations since 1963 when it was under Spanis rule. Western Sahara is the latest case of decolonization in Africa on the United Nations agenda. The General Assembly of the United Nations has constantly recognized the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence and has requested that they be able to exercise this right in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) which it adopted, containing the Declaration for the granting of independence to the colonized countries and people.
[3] the Council of Ministers of the OAU, at its seventh ordinary session, held from October 31 to November 4, 1966 in Addis Ababa, adopted resolution CM / Res. 82 (VII) in the territory under Spanish occupation. Considering Art. 2 of the OAU Charter, which made the eradication of all forms of colonization of the continent one of its main objectives, the Council of Ministers expressed its full support for all efforts aimed at the immediate and unconditional release of all African territories under Spanish domination.
[4]Resolution 2072(XX), question of Ifni and the Spanish Sahara, of December 16, 1965.
[5]since 1963 the territory of western sahara is inscribed on the list of non-autonomous territories of the UN.
[6]In its paragraph 4.” Invites the administering Power to determine at the earliest possible date, in conformity with the aspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Sahara and in consultation with the Governments of Mauritania and Morocco and any other interested party, the procedures for the holding of a referendum under United Nations auspices with a view to enabling the indigenous population of the Territory to exercise freely its right to self-determination and, to this end: (a) To create a favourable climate for the referendum to be conducted on an entirely free, democratic and impartial basis, by permitting, inter alia, the return of exiles to the Territory; (b) To take all the necessary steps to ensure that only the indigenous people of the Territory participate in the referendum; (c) To refrain from any action likely to delay the process of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara; (d) To provide all the necessary facilities to a United Nations mission so that it may be able to participate actively in the organization and holding of the referendum”.
[7]The OAU had reacted vigorously to Morocco’s intransigence to honor its commitments by admitting the SADR( into it in 1982.
[8]The Polisario Front, Frente Polisario, or simply POLISARIO, from the Spanish abbreviation of Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). The Polisario Front was formally constituted on 10 May 1973 at Ain Bentili by several Sahrawi university students, survivors of the 1968 massacres at Zouerate and some Sahrawi men who had served in the Spanish Army.
[9] Resolution 690(1991)of April 29,1991, approved unanimously ,at the 2984th session.
[10]Jus cogens concerns principles of rights considered universal and superior and having to constitute the bases of the imperative norms of general international law, the Vienna Convention of 1969 defines jus cogens in Articles 53 and 64.
The Western Sahara conflict is one of the oldest living international conflicts, resulting from unfinished decolonization altered by a Moroccan occupation since 1975. Even though the UN orders Morocco to withdraw from the territories of Western Sahara, King Hassan II in November 1975[1], organized the Green March, with which he invaded Western Sahara in a double strategy, military by a gang of blood and civil on the other hand, to fill the places of Spanish settlers (who withdraw from the territory) without any consent of the Sahrawi people.
You have to know, despite the crucial importance of the question of Western Sahara on the level of the United Nations agenda[2] and at the level of the African Union[3], this question still mortgages the destiny of the Maghreb, and condition the regional stability in the Sahara and Sahel.
In this context, and at the age of globalization the opportunities to achieve a definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, it can be materialized by the UN respect of its commitments toward the Saharawi people through the organization of Referendum which has been going on since 1965[4].
To understand the reasons of the impasse still facing the question of Western Sahara, and why Morocco defies the international community, by blocking any democratic solution through a free referendum, it seems important to us, to briefly dissect the colonial history of Western Sahara and its people, before examining the geopolitical and geostrategic reasons behind the position of the great powers that hinder the respect of international law of the last colony in Africa.
1-The historical context of Western Sahara colonization
The Saharawi population became Islamized in the 8th century. The age of glory of the Sahrawi’s goes back to the Almoravid Empire. Indeed, The Almoravid one of the most important empires of the medieval Islamic West, an area defined here as al-Andalus (southern Spain and Portugal), the Maghrib and Ifriqiya (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and Western Sahara). The Almoravid Empire was the second of great empires which ruled substantial parts of the Islamic West between the tenth and mid-thirteenth centuries.
The indigenous inhabitants of Western Sahara are collectively known in Arabic writing as the Berbers, a term derived from the Latin barbarus that indicated someone whose language was beyond the pale of Graeco-Roman civilisation. Berber had a similar connotation in Arabic to the term ‘Ajam used for the Persians and other non-Arabic speakers in the Middle East.
The Almoravid empire which dominated the Maghreb from 15 century to 17 century, its roots and its origin came from Western Sahara and northern Mauritania, mainly from the area where the current Sahrawi tribes are located(such as the Arguibat, Ouled Tidrarine, ouled Dleim, Laarousiyine, etc ..).
The Saharawi people exist long before the successive invasions of the 20th century, before the distribution of colonial territories in Africa of the 19th century. It is a people made up of an Arab, Berber and African ethnic group, of the Muslim religion, who practice a moderate Sunnite Islam that is tolerant more than other Muslims countries.
As Western Sahara is the most livable part of the desert; with a high level of humidity and moderate temperate thanks to the influence of the Atlantic, the Sahrawi life passed between trips and routes through the desert, from the interior dunes to the Atlantic coast. They make up a town with their forms of production, based mainly on livestock, and an economic system, without currency until the arrival of the European invaders, based on material heritage and Barter.
The Saharawi people have their specific dialect, the Hasanía the only dialect in North Africa very close to the classical Arabic language. They share the same dialect and the same culture as the people of Mauritania different than the Moroccan culture.
As a result of the Berlin conference, held between November 15, 1884, and February 26, 1885, in which no African country was represented, the first Spanish establishment was installed on the Río de Oro peninsula (today known as Dakhla). However, it was only until 1934 that the Spanish occupation was going to be effective, and only around the end of 1935 can the Spanish troops have pacified the entire Sahrawi territory, and Western Sahara become a total province of Spain in 1958.
It is from this moment that the territory of Western Sahara was part of the expansionist distribution, which the European imperialist powers made of the African continent at the end of the 19th century, due to the economic and political transformations of capitalism that demanded new markets and obtaining greater sources of raw materials for their capital accumulation processes. In fact, due to its geographical position at the gates of Africa and its western facade to the Atlantic, Western Sahara was, for centuries, the target of foreigners, especially European ambitions.
From the above, it is clear, that the existence of western Sahara people contrasts with the old Spanish propaganda, like the current one made by Morocco, in this order of idea Morocco and Spain managed to spread the image of Western Sahara as an uninhabitable desert, without resources and with a climate that devastates all life, and that is a territory without power or a political structure that organizes life.
But with the triggering of the decolonization of the countries under colonial occupation at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s, the Sahrawi people like all African countries benefited from the UN approach: namely the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the main reason that pushes the UN to keep the question of Western Sahara on the agenda of the non-self-governing territories since 1963[5].
2-The United Nations and the decolonization of Western Sahara
Just after its independence on November 28, 1960, Mauritania make claims on Western Sahara and at the same time, Morocco will do the same. Thus on December 17, 1965, the fourth commission of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, relating to the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
Indeed, the emergence of Mauritania, the expansionist aims of Spain(under the military dictatorship of Franco), and the expansionist desire of Morocco to establish the great Maghreb hampered the normal process of completing the decolonization of Western Sahara.
However, the resolution which was adopted on December 20, 1966, namely Resolution 2229[6], affirms the self-determination of the Saharawi people and the need of the Spanish regime to determine as soon as possible the celebration of the referendum.
Along the same lines the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on October 16, 1975, recognized inescapably and indisputably the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination according to the principles of international law in the matter.
Nevertheless, to block the legal judgment of the ICJ the three countries mentioned above(Spain, Morocco and Mauritania) are going to sign an agreement to share Western Sahara against the wishes of its inhabitants, and in opposition with the approach of the UN. Thus, the Madrid Agreement of November 14, 1975, transferred the administration of the Saharawi territory to Morocco the northern part, and to Mauritania the southern part of this immense territory.
But Mauritania after it failed in the war against the Saharawi combatants, abandoned all claims on the territory in August 1979 while recognizing the legitimacy of the SADR(The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic)[7] as the sovereign and legitimate state of the Saharawi people to exercise its sovereignty over Western Sahara.
And after 16 years of merciless war between the Moroccan army and the military troops of the Polisario Front[8], the two parties agreed to reach an agreement by signing a peace agreement for the organization of the referendum under the aegis of the ‘The UN and the Organization of African Unity(AU).
In this context, the Resolution 690(1991)[9], which finally established, under the authority of the Security Council, the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), strengthens the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination which is considered a principle of jus cogens[10].
The agreement signed between the two parties insists on following elements, such as the cease-fire, the presence of both Moroccan and Western Sahara military contingents in certain agreed areas, the release of prisoners and political detainees, the exchange of prisoner of war and then established a timetable for the process, which would have to conclude with the holding of a referendum, approximating a duration of 24 to 26 weeks from the time that the creation of the MINURSO.
But this euphoria within the United Nations came up against the entry into force of the list of voters eligible to participate in the referendum. Morocco as soon as it has discovered that the total of Sahrawi will vote for independence than he looks to another step by refusing any referendum option.
Therefore, Morocco was determined to expand and inflate the electorate, originally based on the 1974 Spanish census, while the Polisario Front was trying to keep it as close as possible within the parameters of the census. And since 1997 the UN has been at an impasse to celebrate the hypothetical referendum.
This how in February 2000, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan will speak openly for the first time on the need for a political solution to resolve this conflict through direct talks between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. In this context,
the Secretary-General of the UN to unblock the situation initiate a new political approach that’s why he appointed a new envoy to Western Sahara: James Baker. This last dared to carry out a plan which takes into consideration the positions of both parties. So it is in January 2003, he delivered to the parties and neighbouring countries the Peace Plan for Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara—also known as Baker Plan II—offering a similar division of tasks for the two sides during a four-year autonomy period to be followed by a self-determination referendum.
Morocco refuses this new plan like the initial plan, and then since that time the question of Western Sahara still in total deadlock, despite the few actions of the United Nations which have no real effect for the moment on the course of events.
Consequently, this turnaround of the UN dictated by geopolitical considerations and not by law. This situation consecrated the weight of the great powers on the final solution to the question of self-determination in Western Sahara.
3- The geopolitical game of the great powers blocks the decolonization of Western Sahara
During the Cold War, it is important to know that both superpower effectively regulated their behaviour towards each other with the desire to share and prevent crises that may give rise to a direct US-Soviet confrontation. In the sense that this never happened, one could argue that the superpowers were engaged in a process of continuous cooperation, defined as the regulation of their activities and relationships, to prevent a confrontation between them.
It is in this sense that we must understand the position that is maintained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, that is to say, the question of Western Sahara has been trapped in the approach of the Cold War, that of maintaining the status quo of unfinished decolonization without obliging the two belligerents, Morocco and the Polisario Front, to embark on the path of peace. This is why we had witnessed an intense and deadly war between the two parties during 16 years from 1975. It is a situation privileged by the two superpowers during the era of the cold war.
With the breakup of the USSR and the birth of the new world order, the situation will undergo a marked change towards more positive behaviour in favour of peace and respect for international law. Indeed, the “World order” is not value-neutral; any actual world order will reflect the values of its architects and members. And as this new order consecrates the dominance of the United States as the world first superpower, we are now witnessing the triumph of the values of liberalism, democracy, individual freedom and the principle of self-determination. In this perspective, the UN will take advantage of this situation to bring the Polisario Front and Morocco to sign a peace agreement to celebrate the referendum in Western Sahara.
Nowadays, the main cause in our opinion behind this dead-end must be sought in the game of the great powers, and in particular, those who have the right of veto within the Security Council, in this case, France, the United States, RUSSIA, the UK and China and the two multilateral organisation AU and EU, without forgetting Spain which remains the administering power of Western Sahara and Morocco occupying power as qualified by international law.
Indeed, due to the return of rivalry between the great powers in a new form, that of the economy with entry into China as the second economic power and the return of RUSSIA as an untouchable military power, the American order will become past and this is how the Sahrawi question will be returned to its starting point that of the impasse because each great power has interests and calculations different from the other power.
Before the bloody events of September 11, 2000, the Maghreb region and the question of Western Sahara do not fall under the strategic priorities of the USA and it is an area of influence of France. But from this date, the USA will be very present in the Maghreb mainly in the search for a solution to complete the decolonization of Western Sahara. It seems that the economic reasons are behind the new American approach.
To preserve its strategic interests, the USA will establish a certain balance which changes according to the American administration without breaking international law, this has been illustrated by the free trade agreement of 2004 with Morocco which doesn’t include Western Sahara. Without a doubt, the American position is that of wait and see waiting to choose the right moment for intervention within the UN or directly on the two actors in conflicts. But for the moment the impasse is preferable for the USA.
Morocco maintains strategic relations of cooperation and partnership with France, while the Polisario Front almost have no relations with France. You should know that France, the colonial power of Morocco before the latter gained its independence in 1956, tackled the question of the decolonization of Western Sahara contrary to the UN principle, and its positions on this matter were known, at least in the current context, unbalanced, biased and unwise, and do not adapt to the requirements of international legitimacy, nor to the weight of a permanent member of the Security Council since it favours the Moroccan occupation in place of respect for international law.
Great Britain it is distinguished by its pragmatic and consistent political attitude. As Western Sahara is in a geographic area which does not strictly enter its area of influence, therefore occupies a second place in its strategic priorities, it attaches very relative importance. The UK position on the conflict of Western Sahara is completely within the United Nations spheres, where they are rather neutral with sometimes an alignment towards the USA position on this question. However, after the Brexit, this position can be changed.
For RUSSIA and China, they prefer to adopt a low profile for all questions not directly affecting their vital spaces. Their roles are subject to contingencies and the ups and downs of the economic situation, they are for the most part in a neutral position and cautious in the post-Cold War order.
Regarding the EU, it maintains a lower profile and its position is still ambiguous despite the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the European Court of Justice had stated without any proof that the EU-Morocco free trade agreements do not apply to Western Sahara. So too the judgment of the European Court of Justice in 02/27/2018 has delivered a judgment ruling that the EU fisheries agreement with Morocco is only valid if it does not apply to the waters of Western Sahara. but despite these judgments, the EU aligns directly with the French and Spanish position on this subject, that of the Moroccan occupation thesis in Western Sahara.
As the successor of the OAU, the African Union over the years has maintained the same position of principle as that adopted by its predecessor concerning the question of Western Sahara. The African Union pledged to support the efforts of the United Nations to break the current deadlock, in the light of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Despite Morocco’s new membership to the AU, the latter continues to have the same position as before that of supporting the UN process, while respecting the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination.
The position of Spain is that of keeping the two protagonists Morocco and the Polisario Front in a conflict situation because it is the only remedy for its outstanding problems with Morocco, notably the question of Ceuta, Melilla, the islands in the Mediterranean, immigrations, and at the same time to punish the Saharawi people who preferred the path of independence to that of being under the Spanish administration.
From the above, it seems clear that the great powers are in favour of the impasse, as soon as the situation in Western Sahara had not yet entered a phase of war and bloodshed. So, therefore, the status quo is more preferable than the application of the law. This indicates a certain underestimation on the part of these superpowers and the SC of the weight of the Saharawi people. Consequently, the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination was postponed to another time this is the constant approach of the UN for many years.
Self-determination remains fundamentally an “objective” of the United Nations and an essential principle of the Charter. On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The United Nations’ highest court has ruled that the continued British occupation of the distant Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.
In this period of gloom and crisis of confidence between the Saharawi people and the UN in a world characterized by the volatility of international relations and the acts of unilateralism and intimidation of a certain State which plunges international law into problems, is the UN capable of respecting the decisions of its judicial body, the ICJ? in particular the decision of the court in 1975 on the question of the Sahara which insists Morocco, Mauritania and Spain to respect the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people through a democratic choice that of the ballot boxes: referendum.
[1] The Green March is a large march of more than 350 thousand people going from Morocco on November 6, 1975 to the Western Sahara Sahara, launched by the Moroccan king Hassan II with the aim of annexing this immense territory rich in phoshphetes, fishing and precious materials.
[2] Western Sahara has been on the list of non-self-governing territories according to the United Nations since 1963 when it was under Spanis rule. Western Sahara is the latest case of decolonization in Africa on the United Nations agenda. The General Assembly of the United Nations has constantly recognized the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence and has requested that they be able to exercise this right in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) which it adopted, containing the Declaration for the granting of independence to the colonized countries and people.
[3] the Council of Ministers of the OAU, at its seventh ordinary session, held from October 31 to November 4, 1966 in Addis Ababa, adopted resolution CM / Res. 82 (VII) in the territory under Spanish occupation. Considering Art. 2 of the OAU Charter, which made the eradication of all forms of colonization of the continent one of its main objectives, the Council of Ministers expressed its full support for all efforts aimed at the immediate and unconditional release of all African territories under Spanish domination.
[4]Resolution 2072(XX), question of Ifni and the Spanish Sahara, of December 16, 1965.
[5]since 1963 the territory of western sahara is inscribed on the list of non-autonomous territories of the UN.
[6]In its paragraph 4.” Invites the administering Power to determine at the earliest possible date, in conformity with the aspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Sahara and in consultation with the Governments of Mauritania and Morocco and any other interested party, the procedures for the holding of a referendum under United Nations auspices with a view to enabling the indigenous population of the Territory to exercise freely its right to self-determination and, to this end: (a) To create a favourable climate for the referendum to be conducted on an entirely free, democratic and impartial basis, by permitting, inter alia, the return of exiles to the Territory; (b) To take all the necessary steps to ensure that only the indigenous people of the Territory participate in the referendum; (c) To refrain from any action likely to delay the process of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara; (d) To provide all the necessary facilities to a United Nations mission so that it may be able to participate actively in the organization and holding of the referendum”.
[7]The OAU had reacted vigorously to Morocco’s intransigence to honor its commitments by admitting the SADR( into it in 1982.
[8]The Polisario Front, Frente Polisario, or simply POLISARIO, from the Spanish abbreviation of Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). The Polisario Front was formally constituted on 10 May 1973 at Ain Bentili by several Sahrawi university students, survivors of the 1968 massacres at Zouerate and some Sahrawi men who had served in the Spanish Army.
[9] Resolution 690(1991)of April 29,1991, approved unanimously ,at the 2984th session.
[10]Jus cogens concerns principles of rights considered universal and superior and having to constitute the bases of the imperative norms of general international law, the Vienna Convention of 1969 defines jus cogens in Articles 53 and 64.
The Western Sahara conflict is one of the oldest living international conflicts, resulting from unfinished decolonization altered by a Moroccan occupation since 1975. Even though the UN orders Morocco to withdraw from the territories of Western Sahara, King Hassan II in November 1975[1], organized the Green March, with which he invaded Western Sahara in a double strategy, military by a gang of blood and civil on the other hand, to fill the places of Spanish settlers (who withdraw from the territory) without any consent of the Sahrawi people.
You have to know, despite the crucial importance of the question of Western Sahara on the level of the United Nations agenda[2] and at the level of the African Union[3], this question still mortgages the destiny of the Maghreb, and condition the regional stability in the Sahara and Sahel.
In this context, and at the age of globalization the opportunities to achieve a definitive solution to the question of Western Sahara, it can be materialized by the UN respect of its commitments toward the Saharawi people through the organization of Referendum which has been going on since 1965[4].
To understand the reasons of the impasse still facing the question of Western Sahara, and why Morocco defies the international community, by blocking any democratic solution through a free referendum, it seems important to us, to briefly dissect the colonial history of Western Sahara and its people, before examining the geopolitical and geostrategic reasons behind the position of the great powers that hinder the respect of international law of the last colony in Africa.
1-The historical context of Western Sahara colonization
The Saharawi population became Islamized in the 8th century. The age of glory of the Sahrawi’s goes back to the Almoravid Empire. Indeed, The Almoravid one of the most important empires of the medieval Islamic West, an area defined here as al-Andalus (southern Spain and Portugal), the Maghrib and Ifriqiya (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania and Western Sahara). The Almoravid Empire was the second of great empires which ruled substantial parts of the Islamic West between the tenth and mid-thirteenth centuries.
The indigenous inhabitants of Western Sahara are collectively known in Arabic writing as the Berbers, a term derived from the Latin barbarus that indicated someone whose language was beyond the pale of Graeco-Roman civilisation. Berber had a similar connotation in Arabic to the term ‘Ajam used for the Persians and other non-Arabic speakers in the Middle East.
The Almoravid empire which dominated the Maghreb from 15 century to 17 century, its roots and its origin came from Western Sahara and northern Mauritania, mainly from the area where the current Sahrawi tribes are located(such as the Arguibat, Ouled Tidrarine, ouled Dleim, Laarousiyine, etc ..).
The Saharawi people exist long before the successive invasions of the 20th century, before the distribution of colonial territories in Africa of the 19th century. It is a people made up of an Arab, Berber and African ethnic group, of the Muslim religion, who practice a moderate Sunnite Islam that is tolerant more than other Muslims countries.
As Western Sahara is the most livable part of the desert; with a high level of humidity and moderate temperate thanks to the influence of the Atlantic, the Sahrawi life passed between trips and routes through the desert, from the interior dunes to the Atlantic coast. They make up a town with their forms of production, based mainly on livestock, and an economic system, without currency until the arrival of the European invaders, based on material heritage and Barter.
The Saharawi people have their specific dialect, the Hasanía the only dialect in North Africa very close to the classical Arabic language. They share the same dialect and the same culture as the people of Mauritania different than the Moroccan culture.
As a result of the Berlin conference, held between November 15, 1884, and February 26, 1885, in which no African country was represented, the first Spanish establishment was installed on the Río de Oro peninsula (today known as Dakhla). However, it was only until 1934 that the Spanish occupation was going to be effective, and only around the end of 1935 can the Spanish troops have pacified the entire Sahrawi territory, and Western Sahara become a total province of Spain in 1958.
It is from this moment that the territory of Western Sahara was part of the expansionist distribution, which the European imperialist powers made of the African continent at the end of the 19th century, due to the economic and political transformations of capitalism that demanded new markets and obtaining greater sources of raw materials for their capital accumulation processes. In fact, due to its geographical position at the gates of Africa and its western facade to the Atlantic, Western Sahara was, for centuries, the target of foreigners, especially European ambitions.
From the above, it is clear, that the existence of western Sahara people contrasts with the old Spanish propaganda, like the current one made by Morocco, in this order of idea Morocco and Spain managed to spread the image of Western Sahara as an uninhabitable desert, without resources and with a climate that devastates all life, and that is a territory without power or a political structure that organizes life.
But with the triggering of the decolonization of the countries under colonial occupation at the end of the 1950s and at the beginning of the 1960s, the Sahrawi people like all African countries benefited from the UN approach: namely the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is the main reason that pushes the UN to keep the question of Western Sahara on the agenda of the non-self-governing territories since 1963[5].
2-The United Nations and the decolonization of Western Sahara
Just after its independence on November 28, 1960, Mauritania make claims on Western Sahara and at the same time, Morocco will do the same. Thus on December 17, 1965, the fourth commission of the United Nations adopted resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, relating to the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
Indeed, the emergence of Mauritania, the expansionist aims of Spain(under the military dictatorship of Franco), and the expansionist desire of Morocco to establish the great Maghreb hampered the normal process of completing the decolonization of Western Sahara.
However, the resolution which was adopted on December 20, 1966, namely Resolution 2229[6], affirms the self-determination of the Saharawi people and the need of the Spanish regime to determine as soon as possible the celebration of the referendum.
Along the same lines the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on October 16, 1975, recognized inescapably and indisputably the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination according to the principles of international law in the matter.
Nevertheless, to block the legal judgment of the ICJ the three countries mentioned above(Spain, Morocco and Mauritania) are going to sign an agreement to share Western Sahara against the wishes of its inhabitants, and in opposition with the approach of the UN. Thus, the Madrid Agreement of November 14, 1975, transferred the administration of the Saharawi territory to Morocco the northern part, and to Mauritania the southern part of this immense territory.
But Mauritania after it failed in the war against the Saharawi combatants, abandoned all claims on the territory in August 1979 while recognizing the legitimacy of the SADR(The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic)[7] as the sovereign and legitimate state of the Saharawi people to exercise its sovereignty over Western Sahara.
And after 16 years of merciless war between the Moroccan army and the military troops of the Polisario Front[8], the two parties agreed to reach an agreement by signing a peace agreement for the organization of the referendum under the aegis of the ‘The UN and the Organization of African Unity(AU).
In this context, the Resolution 690(1991)[9], which finally established, under the authority of the Security Council, the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), strengthens the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination which is considered a principle of jus cogens[10].
The agreement signed between the two parties insists on following elements, such as the cease-fire, the presence of both Moroccan and Western Sahara military contingents in certain agreed areas, the release of prisoners and political detainees, the exchange of prisoner of war and then established a timetable for the process, which would have to conclude with the holding of a referendum, approximating a duration of 24 to 26 weeks from the time that the creation of the MINURSO.
But this euphoria within the United Nations came up against the entry into force of the list of voters eligible to participate in the referendum. Morocco as soon as it has discovered that the total of Sahrawi will vote for independence than he looks to another step by refusing any referendum option.
Therefore, Morocco was determined to expand and inflate the electorate, originally based on the 1974 Spanish census, while the Polisario Front was trying to keep it as close as possible within the parameters of the census. And since 1997 the UN has been at an impasse to celebrate the hypothetical referendum.
This how in February 2000, the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) Kofi Annan will speak openly for the first time on the need for a political solution to resolve this conflict through direct talks between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front. In this context,
the Secretary-General of the UN to unblock the situation initiate a new political approach that’s why he appointed a new envoy to Western Sahara: James Baker. This last dared to carry out a plan which takes into consideration the positions of both parties. So it is in January 2003, he delivered to the parties and neighbouring countries the Peace Plan for Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara—also known as Baker Plan II—offering a similar division of tasks for the two sides during a four-year autonomy period to be followed by a self-determination referendum.
Morocco refuses this new plan like the initial plan, and then since that time the question of Western Sahara still in total deadlock, despite the few actions of the United Nations which have no real effect for the moment on the course of events.
Consequently, this turnaround of the UN dictated by geopolitical considerations and not by law. This situation consecrated the weight of the great powers on the final solution to the question of self-determination in Western Sahara.
3- The geopolitical game of the great powers blocks the decolonization of Western
Sahara
During the Cold War, it is important to know that both superpower effectively regulated their behaviour towards each other with the desire to share and prevent crises that may give rise to a direct US-Soviet confrontation. In the sense that this never happened, one could argue that the superpowers were engaged in a process of continuous cooperation, defined as the regulation of their activities and relationships, to prevent a confrontation between them.
It is in this sense that we must understand the position that is maintained until the collapse of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, that is to say, the question of Western Sahara has been trapped in the approach of the Cold War, that of maintaining the status quo of unfinished decolonization without obliging the two belligerents, Morocco and the Polisario Front, to embark on the path of peace. This is why we had witnessed an intense and deadly war between the two parties during 16 years from 1975. It is a situation privileged by the two superpowers during the era of the cold war.
With the breakup of the USSR and the birth of the new world order, the situation will undergo a marked change towards more positive behaviour in favour of peace and respect for international law. Indeed, the “World order” is not value-neutral; any actual world order will reflect the values of its architects and members. And as this new order consecrates the dominance of the United States as the world first superpower, we are now witnessing the triumph of the values of liberalism, democracy, individual freedom and the principle of self-determination. In this perspective, the UN will take advantage of this situation to bring the Polisario Front and Morocco to sign a peace agreement to celebrate the referendum in Western Sahara.
Nowadays, the main cause in our opinion behind this dead-end must be sought in the game of the great powers, and in particular, those who have the right of veto within the Security Council, in this case, France, the United States, RUSSIA, the UK and China and the two multilateral organisation AU and EU, without forgetting Spain which remains the administering power of Western Sahara and Morocco occupying power as qualified by international law.
Indeed, due to the return of rivalry between the great powers in a new form, that of the economy with entry into China as the second economic power and the return of RUSSIA as an untouchable military power, the American order will become past and this is how the Sahrawi question will be returned to its starting point that of the impasse because each great power has interests and calculations different from the other power.
Before the bloody events of September 11, 2000, the Maghreb region and the question of Western Sahara do not fall under the strategic priorities of the USA and it is an area of influence of France. But from this date, the USA will be very present in the Maghreb mainly in the search for a solution to complete the decolonization of Western Sahara. It seems that the economic reasons are behind the new American approach.
To preserve its strategic interests, the USA will establish a certain balance which changes according to the American administration without breaking international law, this has been illustrated by the free trade agreement of 2004 with Morocco which doesn’t include Western Sahara. Without a doubt, the American position is that of wait and see waiting to choose the right moment for intervention within the UN or directly on the two actors in conflicts. But for the moment the impasse is preferable for the USA.
Morocco maintains strategic relations of cooperation and partnership with France, while the Polisario Front almost have no relations with France. You should know that France, the colonial power of Morocco before the latter gained its independence in 1956, tackled the question of the decolonization of Western Sahara contrary to the UN principle, and its positions on this matter were known, at least in the current context, unbalanced, biased and unwise, and do not adapt to the requirements of international legitimacy, nor to the weight of a permanent member of the Security Council since it favours the Moroccan occupation in place of respect for international law.
Great Britain it is distinguished by its pragmatic and consistent political attitude. As Western Sahara is in a geographic area which does not strictly enter its area of influence, therefore occupies a second place in its strategic priorities, it attaches very relative importance. The UK position on the conflict of Western Sahara is completely within the United Nations spheres, where they are rather neutral with sometimes an alignment towards the USA position on this question. However, after the Brexit, this position can be changed.
For RUSSIA and China, they prefer to adopt a low profile for all questions not directly affecting their vital spaces. Their roles are subject to contingencies and the ups and downs of the economic situation, they are for the most part in a neutral position and cautious in the post-Cold War order.
Regarding the EU, it maintains a lower profile and its position is still ambiguous despite the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the European Court of Justice had stated without any proof that the EU-Morocco free trade agreements do not apply to Western Sahara. So too the judgment of the European Court of Justice in 02/27/2018 has delivered a judgment ruling that the EU fisheries agreement with Morocco is only valid if it does not apply to the waters of Western Sahara. but despite these judgments, the EU aligns directly with the French and Spanish position on this subject, that of the Moroccan occupation thesis in Western Sahara.
As the successor of the OAU, the African Union over the years has maintained the same position of principle as that adopted by its predecessor concerning the question of Western Sahara. The African Union pledged to support the efforts of the United Nations to break the current deadlock, in the light of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Despite Morocco’s new membership to the AU, the latter continues to have the same position as before that of supporting the UN process, while respecting the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination.
The position of Spain is that of keeping the two protagonists Morocco and the Polisario Front in a conflict situation because it is the only remedy for its outstanding problems with Morocco, notably the question of Ceuta, Melilla, the islands in the Mediterranean, immigrations, and at the same time to punish the Saharawi people who preferred the path of independence to that of being under the Spanish administration.
From the above, it seems clear that the great powers are in favour of the impasse, as soon as the situation in Western Sahara had not yet entered a phase of war and bloodshed. So, therefore, the status quo is more preferable than the application of the law. This indicates a certain underestimation on the part of these superpowers and the SC of the weight of the Saharawi people. Consequently, the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination was postponed to another time this is the constant approach of the UN for many years.
Self-determination remains fundamentally an “objective” of the United Nations and an essential principle of the Charter. On February 25, 2019, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The United Nations’ highest court has ruled that the continued British occupation of the distant Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.
In this period of gloom and crisis of confidence between the Saharawi people and the UN in a world characterized by the volatility of international relations and the acts of unilateralism and intimidation of a certain State which plunges international law into problems, is the UN capable of respecting the decisions of its judicial body, the ICJ? in particular the decision of the court in 1975 on the question of the Sahara which insists Morocco, Mauritania and Spain to respect the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people through a democratic choice that of the ballot boxes: referendum.
[1] The Green March is a large march of more than 350 thousand people going from Morocco on November 6, 1975 to the Western Sahara Sahara, launched by the Moroccan king Hassan II with the aim of annexing this immense territory rich in phoshphetes, fishing and precious materials.
[2] Western Sahara has been on the list of non-self-governing territories according to the United Nations since 1963 when it was under Spanis rule. Western Sahara is the latest case of decolonization in Africa on the United Nations agenda. The General Assembly of the United Nations has constantly recognized the inalienable right of the Saharawi people to self-determination and independence and has requested that they be able to exercise this right in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV) which it adopted, containing the Declaration for the granting of independence to the colonized countries and people.
[3] the Council of Ministers of the OAU, at its seventh ordinary session, held from October 31 to November 4, 1966 in Addis Ababa, adopted resolution CM / Res. 82 (VII) in the territory under Spanish occupation. Considering Art. 2 of the OAU Charter, which made the eradication of all forms of colonization of the continent one of its main objectives, the Council of Ministers expressed its full support for all efforts aimed at the immediate and unconditional release of all African territories under Spanish domination.
[4]Resolution 2072(XX), question of Ifni and the Spanish Sahara, of December 16, 1965.
[5]since 1963 the territory of western sahara is inscribed on the list of non-autonomous territories of the UN.
[6]In its paragraph 4.” Invites the administering Power to determine at the earliest possible date, in conformity with the aspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Sahara and in consultation with the Governments of Mauritania and Morocco and any other interested party, the procedures for the holding of a referendum under United Nations auspices with a view to enabling the indigenous population of the Territory to exercise freely its right to self-determination and, to this end: (a) To create a favourable climate for the referendum to be conducted on an entirely free, democratic and impartial basis, by permitting, inter alia, the return of exiles to the Territory; (b) To take all the necessary steps to ensure that only the indigenous people of the Territory participate in the referendum; (c) To refrain from any action likely to delay the process of the decolonization of Spanish Sahara; (d) To provide all the necessary facilities to a United Nations mission so that it may be able to participate actively in the organization and holding of the referendum”.
[7]The OAU had reacted vigorously to Morocco’s intransigence to honor its commitments by admitting the SADR( into it in 1982.
[8]The Polisario Front, Frente Polisario, or simply POLISARIO, from the Spanish abbreviation of Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). The Polisario Front was formally constituted on 10 May 1973 at Ain Bentili by several Sahrawi university students, survivors of the 1968 massacres at Zouerate and some Sahrawi men who had served in the Spanish Army.
[9] Resolution 690(1991)of April 29,1991, approved unanimously ,at the 2984th session.
[10]Jus cogens concerns principles of rights considered universal and superior and having to constitute the bases of the imperative norms of general international law, the Vienna Convention of 1969 defines jus cogens in Articles 53 and 64.