Territorial dispute: Morocco versus the European Court of Justice - who is right?

[bigdaddy1204]

The European Court of Justice has delivered a controversial judgement against Morocco, denying that the territory called "Western Sahara" is part of the country, despite it being governed by Morocco ever since Spain relinquished control over the former colony in 1975. For those who don't know the background to this, the area below the dotted line is considered by Moroccans to be an integral part of their country; the European court's decision will undoubtedly be rejected by Morocco.

The territory in question is ruled wholly by Morocco; people that live there have Moroccan citizenship, Moroccan passport and overwhelmingly consider themselves Moroccans. Many of them are Moroccans who were given incentives to settle there in previous decades by the Moroccan government (generous benefits such as free housing, etc). However, there are some groups funded by Algeria which are trying to claim that the territory belongs to a separate country, the Sahrawi Arab Republic. Their claims are rejected by Morocco; the general feeling in the country is that this is simply a ploy by Algeria to get its hands on the Atlantic ports, so that Algeria can envelop Morocco from two sides and gain trade advantages.

Is this simply a case of meddling Europeans not understanding the local politics, and taking the wrong conclusion? Or do you think the separatists have a case, despite the fact that they all live across the border in Tindouf, Algeria?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eu...ara-1193098035

[VALIS]

Irrelevant and silly ruling by the ECJ and the Moroccans would do well to ignore it. It is yet another example of the rather tedious overbearing and hectoring moralism the EU institutions and broader global liberal order are inanely attached too. Given that the only thing that separates law from mere opinion is physical force, of which the ECJ does not have, then this ruling is little more than straw.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The European Court of Justice has delivered a controversial judgement against Morocco, denying that the territory called "Western Sahara" is part of the country

No they have not.

They have ruled that EU agreements with Morocco do not extend to Western Sahara. Despite your rosey viewed OP, WS has faced decades of civil conflict and the territory remains disputed and outside of African states and the Arab League no UN member states recognise Moroccan sovereignty over WS.

Given this situation it's hardly controversial that the EU has extended this policy and clarified WS with Moroccan trade agreements.

Given that the only thing that separates law from mere opinion is physical force, of which the ECJ does not have, then this ruling is little more than straw.

A stupid thing to say. This ruling governs the trade relationship between the EU and Morocco, and almost all Morocco's top import/export partners are EU states.

[Love Mountain]

I did quite a bit of reading on this in the last hour or so, there's quite a bit more that you haven't mentioned in the OP. Will try to post a better post later, but there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.

[ggsimmonds]

I'd have to get more information from a less biased source before offering my thoughts, because it is clear the OP is not a reliable source.

[StarDreamer]

What the OP meant to say was that Morocco conquered the area against the wishes of a large part of the local populance and there has been civil strife in the area ever since. Let's not start the thread with outright lies.

[bigdaddy1204]

What the OP meant to say was that Morocco conquered the area against the wishes of a large part of the local populance and there has been civil strife in the area ever since. Let's not start the thread with outright lies.

It's true Hassan II was a bad king and he did regrettable things (to his own people), but the reality is the land has Moroccans living on it. The only areas occupied by the Polisario terrorists are remote areas in the desert, uninhabited. For the record, I know someone who lost her brother to the terrorists - he was killed by the Polisario. Go ahead and call me biased.

"Western Sahara" is a creation of the western imperialist countries of France and Spain in the colonial era (19th/20th century).

Morocco's claim is much older and goes back to the 11th century: Berbers from across this whole region created the Almoravid empire, which ultimately grew into modern Morocco.

The Almoravids established the first Moroccan state in the 11th century under Yahya ibn Ibrahim who was from the coastal region of Mauretania (to the south of Morocco's "Western Sahara" region), and Abdallah ibn Yassin, who was from the Gazzula Berber tribe from the Draa valley, located in southern Morocco just to the north of the "Western Sahara" region. The Almoravid empire initially grew with the support of the Lamtuna tribe, traditionally based just to the south of the "Western Sahara" region of Morocco; they also united several other Berber tribes in southern Morocco and ultimately founded Marrakech.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It's true Hassan II was a bad king and he did regrettable things (to his own people), but the reality is the land has Moroccans living on it. The only areas occupied by the Polisario terrorists are remote areas in the desert, uninhabited. For the record, I know someone who lost her brother to the terrorists - he was killed by the Polisario. Go ahead and call me biased.

So let me get this straight: Morocco conquered an area seeking independence, forcing the natives to flee and to this day live and refugee camps, and then colonized it with its own citizens.
But it's okay, since it now has Moroccans living there.
So, if Israel were to kick the palestinians out of the west bank to the point that Jews become the majority, would you then be fine with Israel owning the area?
Because if one is okay, but the other is not, I will have to call you a hypocrite.

[B. W.]

So let me get this straight: Morocco conquered an area seeking independence, forcing the natives to flee and to this day live and refugee camps, and then colonized it with its own citizens.
But it's okay, since it now has Moroccans living there.
So, if Israel were to kick the palestinians out of the west bank to the point that Jews become the majority, would you then be fine with Israel owning the area?
Because if one is okay, but the other is not, I will have to call you a hypocrite.

+rep

The Morocan establishment are not nice people. I had a friend who spent three days in jail there. During questioning they hit him so hard in the back with a rifle butt that the blow cracked a vertebrate in his back. He's had problems ever since.

[IrishBlood]

+rep

The Morocan establishment are not nice people. I had a friend who spent three days in jail there. During questioning they hit him so hard in the back with a rifle butt that the blow cracked a vertebrate in his back. He's had problems ever since.

Watch the documentary I posted, plenty of instances of Moroccan police brutality to back that up.

[bigdaddy1204]

So let me get this straight: Morocco conquered an area seeking independence, forcing the natives to flee and to this day live and refugee camps, and then colonized it with its own citizens.
But it's okay, since it now has Moroccans living there.
So, if Israel were to kick the palestinians out of the west bank to the point that Jews become the majority, would you then be fine with Israel owning the area?
Because if one is okay, but the other is not, I will have to call you a hypocrite.

Thank you for responding. The difference is that there aren't any Sahrawi people under Moroccan occupation. They're all in Tindouf in Algeria. So I suppose it would be like an alternate version of Israel-Palestine, in which all the Palestinians didn't live under Israeli control but lived across the border in Jordan or somewhere.

Also, in April 2007, the government of Morocco suggested that a self-governing entity, through the Royal Advisory Council for Saharan Affairs (CORCAS), should govern the territory with some degree of autonomy for Western Sahara. The project was presented to the United Nations Security Council in mid-April 2007, and quickly gained French and US support. Polisario had handed in its own proposal the day before, which insisted on the previously agreed referendum, but allowed for negotiating the status of Moroccans now living in the territory should the outcome of a referendum be in favor of independence. This led to the negotiations process known as the Manhasset negotiations. Four rounds were held in 2007 and 2008; no progress was made, however, as both parties refused to compromise about what they considered core sovereignty issues. Polisario agreed to add autonomy as per the Moroccan proposal to a referendum ballot, but refused to relinquish the concept of an independence referendum itself, as agreed in 1991 and 1997. Morocco, in its turn, insisted on only negotiating the terms of autonomy offered, but refused to consider an option of independence on the ballot.

Hah, what makes Morocco atrocious isn't the "standard of living", but all the savagery.

Coming from you, it's a bit rich to talk about "savagery". Given your post history and views, I think you are in no position to talk down to anyone. Tell me, how many times have you visited Morocco? And how many Moroccans do you know? I'd be willing to bet that the answer to both questions is zero. You probably couldn't even find Morocco on a map. The fact that you seem to think it's in the Middle East indicates that your grasp of geography is seriously flawed. I suggest you consult a dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other relevant source of information. It it generally considered a good idea to know what you are talking about before posting.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Thank you for responding. The difference is that there aren't any Sahrawi people under Moroccan occupation. They're all in Tindouf in Algeria. So I suppose it would be like an alternate version of Israel-Palestine, in which all the Palestinians didn't live under Israeli control but lived across the border in Jordan or somewhere.

Also, in April 2007, the government of Morocco suggested that a self-governing entity, through the Royal Advisory Council for Saharan Affairs (CORCAS), should govern the territory with some degree of autonomy for Western Sahara. The project was presented to the United Nations Security Council in mid-April 2007, and quickly gained French and US support. Polisario had handed in its own proposal the day before, which insisted on the previously agreed referendum, but allowed for negotiating the status of Moroccans now living in the territory should the outcome of a referendum be in favor of independence. This led to the negotiations process known as the Manhasset negotiations. Four rounds were held in 2007 and 2008; no progress was made, however, as both parties refused to compromise about what they considered core sovereignty issues. Polisario agreed to add autonomy as per the Moroccan proposal to a referendum ballot, but refused to relinquish the concept of an independence referendum itself, as agreed in 1991 and 1997. Morocco, in its turn, insisted on only negotiating the terms of autonomy offered, but refused to consider an option of independence on the ballot..

I know, that's what I'm saying: if Israel kicked out the palestinians from Judea and Samaria, it would be exactly the same situation. 500,000 Israelis would be living there.
My question is, if that were to happen, would you then be opposed to palestinian independence, like you are opposed to sahrawi independence?

And btw, unlike Morocco, Israel at least gave the territory autonomy (areas A and B). Morocco won't even do that much.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

As soon as Spain pulled out of the region, western sahara declared independence. Morocco occupied the majority of it (but not all. A bit of research will show you that the polisario controls some territory.)
You yourself then admit that Morocco colonised it with their own citizens, who are then of course loyal to Morocco. Morocco has since agreed to hold a referrendum in the area, but many years have since passed and still nothing. This is quite clearly not as simple and obvious a situation as you first implied.

[sumskilz]

You yourself then admit that Morocco colonised it with their own citizens, who are then of course loyal to Morocco. Morocco has since agreed to hold a referrendum in the area, but many years have since passed and still nothing. This is quite clearly not as simple and obvious a situation as you first implied.

I would think the hundreds of people made to disappear for having the wrong opinion along with the alleged napalming of Sahrawi refugee camps would have tilted public opinion in Morocco's favor. I can't say I know the truth behind every allegation, nevertheless:

Morocco has been repeatedly condemned and criticized for its actions in Western Sahara by several international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as:

Amnesty International[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
Human Rights Watch[23][24]
World Organization Against Torture[25][26][27]
Freedom House[28]
Reporters Without Borders[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]
International Committee of the Red Cross
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights[36][37][38]
Derechos Human Rights[39]
Defend International[40][41]
Front Line Defenders[42][43][44][45][46][47][47][48][49][50][51]
International Federation of Human Rights[52][53][54][55][56][57]
Society for Threatened Peoples[58][59][60][61][62]
Norwegian Refugee Council[63]
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights[64][65][66][67][68][69][70]
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies[71][72][73]
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information[74][75][76][77]
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network[78]

Human rights in Western Sahara

[Iskar]

I doubt that historical predecessor states count as viable arguments for territorial claims. Various political entities have tried arguing that way in the past and it is generally condemned by everyone else. If such claims were valid, we'd have to give back the entire mediterranean territories to the Romans or, while we're at it, to the Greek and Phoenician settlers before them, or why not the descendants of the paleolithic hunter-gatherers inhabiting the areas....

Picking out one point in history and basing territorial claims on it simply does not work. The collective expression of the political will of a given populace is the only legitmate foundation for determining rightful territorial adherence to a given country. (And pushing your own settlers onto the land is a well-known tactic for rigging such processes.)

[VALIS]

"Western Sahara" is a creation of the western imperialist countries of France and Spain in the colonial era (19th/20th century).

Morocco's claim is much older and goes back to the 11th century: Berbers from across this whole region created the Almoravid empire, which ultimately grew into modern Morocco.

The Almoravids established the first Moroccan state in the 11th century under Yahya ibn Ibrahim who was from the coastal region of Mauretania (to the south of Morocco's "Western Sahara" region), and Abdallah ibn Yassin, who was from the Gazzula Berber tribe from the Draa valley, located in southern Morocco just to the north of the "Western Sahara" region. The Almoravid empire initially grew with the support of the Lamtuna tribe, traditionally based just to the south of the "Western Sahara" region of Morocco; they also united several other Berber tribes in southern Morocco and ultimately founded Marrakech.

Okay that argument is ludicrous though, this was like 900 years ago, on that basis England has a rightful claim on Northern France.

[removeduser_487563287433]

"Western Sahara" is a creation of the western imperialist countries of France and Spain in the colonial era (19th/20th century).

Morocco's claim is much older and goes back to the 11th century: Berbers from across this whole region created the Almoravid empire, which ultimately grew into modern Morocco.

The Almoravids established the first Moroccan state in the 11th century under Yahya ibn Ibrahim who was from the coastal region of Mauretania (to the south of Morocco's "Western Sahara" region), and Abdallah ibn Yassin, who was from the Gazzula Berber tribe from the Draa valley, located in southern Morocco just to the north of the "Western Sahara" region. The Almoravid empire initially grew with the support of the Lamtuna tribe, traditionally based just to the south of the "Western Sahara" region of Morocco; they also united several other Berber tribes in southern Morocco and ultimately founded Marrakech.

Completely irrelevant. You're still ignoring the reality of what has happened in WS since the seventies and the fact nobody of importance recognises Moroccan sovereignty over it.

[Love Mountain]

Doing more reading on the subject I'm more and more conflicted about who is "right" in the current conflict. Western Sahara is in de-factor state of civil war but the Moroccan government does not seem interested in pursuing a war of conquest, indeed Morocco has pushed some ideas of offering autonomy at most to the SADR. As usual, both sides have done some pretty terrible things. The West, as usual, offers flowery speech rather than direct action. Though I don't really know what they could force without threatening military force. It's clear that neither Morocco nor SADR are willing to negotiate. Yet another self-perpetuating conflict much like Israel's Palestine question. I can hardly blame either party as both have some good points. What really needs to happen is some kind of outside force making both sides come together to negotiate to solve these questions. Quite frankly, the more I read about it, the less sympathy I have for either side. The true losers, as usual, are the displaced people of Western Sahara.

[StarDreamer]

"Western Sahara" is a creation of the western imperialist countries of France and Spain in the colonial era (19th/20th century).

Morocco's claim is much older and goes back to the 11th century: Berbers from across this whole region created the Almoravid empire, which ultimately grew into modern Morocco.

The Almoravids established the first Moroccan state in the 11th century under Yahya ibn Ibrahim who was from the coastal region of Mauretania (to the south of Morocco's "Western Sahara" region), and Abdallah ibn Yassin, who was from the Gazzula Berber tribe from the Draa valley, located in southern Morocco just to the north of the "Western Sahara" region. The Almoravid empire initially grew with the support of the Lamtuna tribe, traditionally based just to the south of the "Western Sahara" region of Morocco; they also united several other Berber tribes in southern Morocco and ultimately founded Marrakech.

Are you going to claim that morocco should get southern spain too? Quite frankly any "terrorists" there are in western sahara is directly linked to the illegal military occupation by morocco. I don't support their actions, but quite frankly that is the sort of things that might start happening when you occupy another nation.

[Yayattasa]

All over the world the motif repeats. Refugees up to any degree should be given the right of return. Wherever settlements become minority, settlers should be given choice of citizenship in the new State or evacuate to their mother nation.