![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOver at Inter Press Service, Haider Rizvi tackles the question of why the Western Sahara, occupied by Morocco in defiance of international law.
As the author notes, the Western Sahara is rich in natural resources, so rich that Morocco isn't likely to relinquish its hold on the territory. Worse, unlike Kosovo or Abkhazia, the Western Sahara has no great-power patron with the dubious exception of Algeria.
"The main reason behind the U.N. failure to address this issue is the French support for Morocco," said Ahmed Boukhari, Western Sahara's ambassador to the U.N., in an interview with IPS. "France is behind Morocco. It finances Morocco."
Western Sahara is the last decolonisation case in Africa, and has been on the U.N. list of Non-Self Governing territories since 1963 when it was under Spanish colonial rule. Saharans lost much of their territory as a result of the Moroccan invasion in 1976.
Saharans argue that the Moroccan occupation is in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions as well as the 1975 ruling of the International Court of Justice that affirmed their right to self-determination.
Following the court's decision, Spain was due to organiae a referendum, but failed to do so as Morocco deployed its army in Western Sahara. In response, the Saharans established a resistance group known as Polisario in 1976. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council devised a plan to end fighting between the two sides and a free and fair referendum on self-determination in which Saharans would choose between independence and integration. The plan never worked.
After holding a series of discussions, the U.N. General Assembly's political committee, which considers matters related to decolonisation, passed another resolution in which it reaffirmed the right of "all peoples" to self-determination in line with the U.N. Charter.
Those who support the Saharans' quest for freedom are critical of the text of the resolution because it overemphasises the role of the Security Council. The Council is currently pushing the two sides for talks for an "acceptable solution". The increased Security Council role in bringing the conflict to an end seems more desirable for Morocco because then its backer, France, can exert its influence in decision-making process as one of the five permanent members who enjoy veto power.
During discussions at the General Assembly's political committee meeting, Morocco and its supporters argued that the question of Western Sahara needs to be addressed with "realism", which means Rabat might be willing to offer an autonomous status to Western Sahara, not the choice for independence.
"Which kind of realism they are talking about? Kosovo or Abkhazia? We are not going to renounce our right to self-determination. We want a free and fair credendum. If people do not want independence, we will accept that," said Bukhari, who sees French backing as a major factor behind Morocco's attempts to bury the issue of Western Sahara's independence.
As the author notes, the Western Sahara is rich in natural resources, so rich that Morocco isn't likely to relinquish its hold on the territory. Worse, unlike Kosovo or Abkhazia, the Western Sahara has no great-power patron with the dubious exception of Algeria.
