Q&A: The Western Sahara Issue

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question & Answer

The Western Sahara Issue

(Translated)

Question:

On 29/4/2014, the Security Council issued Resolution No. 2152 regarding the issue of the Western Sahara, the decision was in light of the report of the Secretary-General on 10/04/2014. Note that the report of the Secretary-General came following initiatives by Ross, the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, during his visits to North Africa on 28/01/2014, and after visits of King Mohammed VI, which began on 18/2/2014 to Africa, especially to countries loyal to France, the visits were friendly with multiple agreements signed. The recommendations of the Secretary-General’s report stated: “The extension of the Mission until 30/04/2015.”

The question is: Why is the Sahara issue shifted from one resolution to another without a solution for nearly forty years since its independence from Spain on 26/02/1976? Is there a relationship between visits made by Ross and the King, and the UN Security Council Resolution 2152? How do we explain the king’s visit, who is loyal to Britain, to African countries that are loyal to France; and signing several agreements with them as if the interests of Britain and France are the same? Is there a particular purpose behind the visits of the King to the four African countries, especially since they came after the visit of Ross to the region? Jazak Allah Khair

Answer:

The answer to this question will take pages and pages, but I will try to be brief. However, to have a clearer picture there is a need to review how the issue of the Sahara arose, and the struggle for Africa between the old colonial Europe, especially Britain and France, and between the new colonialism, America. In addition, to be able to understand when the conflict is between Britain and France, and when the conflict or confrontation is between Britain and France on the one hand and between America on the other hand, then the purpose of the visit of King to the four countries after the visit of Ross to the region will become clearer:

First, the emergence of the Sahara issue:

It is well known that since the rule of King Hassan of Morocco, and Boumediene in Algeria, they become influenced by Britain, and the two countries became closed off in front of America. America found an opportunity through the Polisario Movement for Independence of the Sahara after the exit of Spain in 26/02/1976 CE, after 91 years of colonialism. The United Nations was influenced by America and formed a fact-finding mission sent to the Western Sahara. The Mission handed its report to the General Assembly at 06/09/1975 that recommends the Sahara independence from Spain and added that the Organization of the Polisario Movement is the most dominant in the region and has considerable impact. Thus, America highlighted and supported the Polisario as a representative of the Saharawi people. The purpose was to prevent the return of the Sahara to Morocco after Spain’s departure, and to keep it as the focus of tension demanding independence, to be exploited by America for its interests in North Africa. Then on the following day after the withdrawal of Spain in 26/02/1976 CE, the National Council of the Sahara declared the establishment of the Saharawi Arab Republic and then joined the Organization of the African Union in 22/02/1982. However, after Spain’s exit, Morocco and Mauritania occupied the Sahara in 14/04/1976. Though, Mauritania after the coup against Ould Dada signed a peace deal with the Polisario in Algeria on 05/08/1979 CE under which it ended its occupation of the Sahara; Morocco remained alone in the Sahara.

Thus, Tindouf in Algeria became the location of the headquarters of the Sahrawi government and the Polisario. America began its actual intervention directly through influencing the issuance of United Nations resolutions on the Sahara:

A. On 19/4/1991, the Security Council issued Resolution No. 690 to form a United Nations Mission (MINURSO) for the referendum for self-determination in Western Sahara… and continued to issue resolutions until the arrival of Kofi Annan who appointed James Baker in 1997 as a personal envoy to implement the resolution of the referendum mentioned. After three years, Baker suggested a compromise in his report on 13/7/2000, called the Third Solution, which states that the solution should be in stages, starting with self-autonomy rule of the Sahara, and then after five years, there will be a referendum on self-determination. The Security Council has approved the proposal by Baker and issued in this regard Resolution No. 1359 on 29/6/2001. Although Morocco had reservations on the resolution at first, but seven years on after the Baker proposal, Morocco submitted to U.S. pressure and announced its proposal on 2007 to establish a broad self-autonomous rule in the Sahara, and considered the American initiative by Baker a Moroccan initiative! Morocco presented its initiative on 11/4/2007 and it was adopted by the UN Security Council in resolution 1754 on 25/4/2007.

B. Thus Morocco approved the Baker initiative for the rule of autonomy, and called it the Moroccan Initiative! Thinking that it will be the last of the concessions to be made, when it was considered by the United States as a step leading up to self-determination and secession according to America’s plans in this regard, similar to what took place in the separation of South Sudan…. After the approval of Morocco on this initiative, matters calmed down for a while due to the emergence of issues of priority to America such as the economic crisis, which escalated in 2008 and beyond, as well as foreign political and military crises… until the spring of 2013, when America had begun to stir the crisis once again with great force; to use the Sahara crisis as a justification for intervention in North Africa and the bordering African countries. It has formulated a draft project to be presented to the Security Council and was designed to expand the role of the UN Mission MINURSO in the Moroccan Sahara to include human rights monitoring in the Sahara, so to monitor every issue big or small in the desert under the pretext of human rights! The King has made many efforts with the U.S. administration not to expand the role of the Mission, and that the observance of human rights should remain outside the role of the Mission. The expansion of the role of the Mission was then adjourned by America. On 25/4/2013 the UN Security Council issued Resolution No. 2099, being lenient in terms of human rights, the text of the resolution was encouraging to the parties not obliging them. “The Security Council encourages the parties to continue their efforts to promote and protect human rights in Western Sahara and in Tindouf camps”. America, the Secretary-General, and his personal Envoy, Ross, during the year of extension have energised in creating the atmosphere to discuss the referendum and human rights… so the American diplomat Christopher Ross as the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Western Sahara paid a visit to the area in October 2013 and then on 28/01/2014, and met with Morocco’s Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar. “Before coming to Morocco, Ross met in Algeria with the Polisario leader Muhammad bin Abdul Aziz, also he met with the Prime Minister of Algeria Abdul Malik As-Silal.” (American Radio Sawa 28/01/2014). In his visits, Ross was interested in the subject of the referendum and human rights.

C. This was a worry for the King, and this concern has increased after Ban Ki-moon’s report on 4/10/2014. He recommended in his report under Clause VIII – Observations and Recommendations, the following:

In Item 94: “I call on both parties to recognize the need for urgent progress, and to work seriously on core issues contained in the directives of the Security Council, intending to reach a political solution through the frame of self-determination.” And then added, warning if not threatening, “If progress is not observed before April 2015 it will be time to involve members of the Council in the process that present a comprehensive framework that was provided for the negotiations in April 2007.”… In Item100: “Nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to achieve continuous, independent, and impartial monitoring of the human rights that cover both the region and the camps.” In Item101: “I think that the presence of the Mission is a mechanism to support the implementation of successive Security Council resolutions related to the term of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.”… In Item102: “I recommend that the Security Council extend the term of the Mission for a further 12 months until 30 April 2015.”

All this compelled the King to contact Ban Ki-moon and warned him, and even threatened him! It is reported in the Middle East Newspaper on 15/4/2014 from diplomatic sources in New York and identical sources in Rabat the reaction of Mohammed VI threatening the Secretary-General in a telephone conversation with him on 13/4/2014 of abolishing the United Nations Mission MINURSO. It seems that America did not wish to escalate this issue. The current relatively lenient resolution of the Security Council followed. This means that the U.S. escalation in the issue has been postponed once more to the end of the term of the new United Nations Mission in accordance with the new resolution until 30/4/2015.

Thus, the Sahara issue is manufactured by America to be a hotbed of tension exploited by America for its intervention in Africa to influence the affairs of countries loyal to Europe, (Britain and France) to access other countries through it, therefore, America is unharmed by delaying the solution from one year to another just to keep Europe and its agents in suspense regarding these issues.

Second, the Conflict between Colonialism on Africa old Europe (Britain and France) and between the new colonialism of America:

A. During President Clinton’s era in the nineties of the last century, America’s efforts were focused on addressing the old European powers (Britain and France) in Africa, in the last bastions of European domination. America’s aspirations to dominate Africa led to a new kind of rush towards Africa; Clinton declared officially the participation of America with Africa in the law of the African Growth and Opportunity (AGOA). The first papers of the law were introduced in 1998, and were approved later in May 2000 AD. The main direction of the U.S. administration is working to combine the economies of African countries that fall under the direct control of Britain and France to the American sphere of influence. Writer Philip Limari summed up the predicament faced by Europe in Le Monde Diplomatique Newspaper, especially by France, saying: “At the end of March, President Bill Clinton would have made his first visit to Africa, it seems that the former colonial powers are torn and unable to reach any constructive ideas, where the United States began to focus on the continent as one of the pristine areas in front of the investors in the United States.” [Philip Limari, “Washington Preparing for the Invasion of Pristine Land” Le Monde Diplomatique: 1998]

B. To counter the U.S. moves, Britain and France put centuries of old competition between them in Africa aside at least temporarily, seeking to cooperate on a number of fronts to thwart U.S. efforts aimed at colonizing large parts of Africa. In 1999, the United Kingdom and France launched a campaign for a new partnership with Africa. British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in a visit with his French counterpart to Ghana said that the initiative was not for another colonization under another different guise, but it is to show partnership in Africa, and that the main common diplomatic goal of the French and British is to solve the conflicts in Africa, where he said: “Our goal is to achieve stability, Britain and France have numerous trials in Africa… this is not a conspiracy, what we are doing is introducing a partnership.” French Foreign Minister Hubert Verdun said, “We strengthen ourselves so that Europe is able to adopt a new policy towards Africa.” [World: Africa – A New Era in Partnership, BBC, 11 March 1999]. The new partnership was based on the agreement of Saint-Malo, which took place in the Franco-British summit in 1998, which became the cornerstone of all forms of future cooperation between the two countries. In 2003, at the summit meeting between the two countries, the final declaration of the meeting stated: “In this context, we refer to the commitment we made at the Saint-Malo Summit to unite our efforts to promote peace and stability in Africa, and therefore we propose to our partners in the European Union to study how they can contribute to conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Africa, including through independent operations in the European Union, and in close cooperation with the United Nations.” [“Franco-British Summit: Declaration on the strengthening of the European partnership, cooperation in the field of security and defence”, Le Touquet.” French Embassy in London, February 2003].

It is clear from this that Europe, (Britain and France) are aware of the vicious attack of America on Europe’s political influence in Africa, and that the risk of this attack affects the interests of both countries, in this case, they co-operate together against U.S. intervention.

Thirdly: When is the Conflict between Britain and France, and when is it between Britain and France on one side and America on the other:

When observing political conflicts between America, Britain, and France, it is clear that the conflict between the British and French will be in the country which America have no interest in, or in a country that America is distracted from with other crises of priority to it, especially if the crisis was a major military one such as the American aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case, the struggle can be between Britain and France depending on their respective interests in that country.

But if America’s ambitions are on a particular country and it is not preoccupied by any crisis, and is working to introduce its influence in that country, the conflict will be between Europe (Britain and France) and the U.S., because Britain and France realize that America with its political ambitions in that country want to weaken both sides (Britain and France) conflict will be between them and America with the difference in the methods of each.

This is the most probable view in terms of the broad outlines of the conflict, when and how. With exceptions in some specific cases where it may deviate from the above-mentioned, but in origin this is the most probable.

Fourth: Purpose of the King’s visit to the four African countries, which came after the visit of Ross to the region:

A. One analysing the visit of Ross, Secretary-General Moon’s Envoy, will find that it came before the King’s visit in the month of October 2013 and then in 28/01/2014, and it was clear in his visits that he aimed to hound Morocco regarding its relation with the Western Sahara, and was discussing the referendum and human rights as entrances for the separation of Western Sahara from Morocco, and then to establish the desert as a pillar of America from which to enter its influence, especially political and economic in place of Europe in the African countries concerned… as we have said before, Britain and France realize that the American political and economic attack in Africa is detrimental to their interests… Gaddafi was implementing of the European English policy and attacked the American policy in Africa. It seems that Britain felt that the best suited for this role after Gaddafi is King Mohammed VI, he was assigned with the task by Britain with the support of France, because the American danger affects the interests of both countries. In this scenario, the Anglo-French conflict and confrontation disappears and turns into a conflict with America to ward off the danger away from both of them. This is why the King carried out this role; it is to focus on two prominent issues:

First, gathering support for the self-autonomy rule initiative in the Sahara as a final solution without self-determination, without any separation, but to remain part of Morocco… and the second is signing of the economic projects to cut the road in front of America, which uses it to access its influence in Africa.

B. This has been evident during the King’s visit to the four African countries, noting that these countries did not recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) when it was announced on 22/2/1982, except for Mali, which recognized it at first then changed its position and withdrew its recognition on 23/09/2013 after the first visit of King on 19/9/2013. The King paid it a second visit to thank it for the withdrawal of its recognition. Morocco is interested to be reinstated in African Union Organization which it withdrew from on the 12/11/1984 due to the organisation’s recognition of the Republic of the Polisario, this visit discussed this matter as well.

Based on this, it can be said that the King’s visit was intended to support the initiative for self-autonomy rule in the Sahara as a final solution and that it remains under the Morocco’s rule, and the accompanying economic projects for this definitely attempts to force America out of the region politically and economically. The following outstanding statements made during the visit to the four countries confirm this:

– Mali was the first leg of the tour, from 18 – 23/02/2014. He visited it last year in September where he participated in the inauguration of the new president of Mali, Ibrahim Abu Bakr Keita on 19/09/2013. At first Mali recognized the Polisario Republic, and then withdrew its recognition on 23/9/2013 after that visit… It is known that Abu Bakr came to power through French sponsored elections, which removed the coup brought by America in Mali led by Amadou Sonogu on 22/3/2012. In the final statement of the visit, it stated:

“Regarding the situation in the Sahara… President Keita praised the serious and credible efforts by Morocco in order to move forward towards a peaceful negotiated and final settlement on this issue. On the other hand, the president expressed regret for the absence of Morocco from the African Union, and stressed to the king his commitment to work by mutual agreement with his African counterparts, for the return of Morocco to the fold of the Organization of the African Union.” End. In the statement also: “The President appreciates highly the collaborative efforts in economic, social and cultural fields exerted by the King, through the signing of 17 agreements covering a number of sectors between the two countries, and in order to strengthen economic cooperation between Morocco and Mali…” End.

– The Ivory Coast did not recognize the Republic of the Polisario since its inception. The king’s visit was from 23/2 – 03/03/2014, it is stated in the final statement: “Morocco and the Ivory Coast confirm that the continuation of the Sahara conflict ‘poses a threat to the unity and security of the region’. The new Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara support the self-autonomy rule plan proposed by Morocco as a political solution to end the conflict, it being the perfect solution.”

– Whereas Guinea Conakry, also did not recognize the Republic of the Polisario since its inception, the king’s visit had been from 3 – 03/05/2014. The following came in the final statement: “… The visit resulted in the signing of several agreements in the economic and political areas… the two leaders chaired a ceremony presenting the Sharif Phosphate Office with a gift which is a fertilizer and animal food supplements, they launched a unit to convert the grain in order to improve agricultural production… and on the issue of the Sahara, the President expressed his support for the Moroccan initiative to grant broad autonomy for the Sahara, which is a serious and credible effort by Morocco in order to reach a final settlement of this conflict. The president highlighted the important role played by Morocco for the unity of the continent, and expressed his commitment to work for the return of the kingdom into the fold of the African Union, in respect of the territorial integrity of Morocco.”

– And the most country visited by King Mohammed VI is Gabon, where he visited several times in the past few years… and the last visit was 5-03/08/2014 then stayed there for a break until 13/3/2013. It is known that Gabon is independent but it is actually a French colony, which also does not recognize the Republic of the Polisario. It states in the final statement: “… the King and President presided over an informal session during which the signing of an agreement between the two countries took place, it establishes a strategic partnership in the field of fertilizer industry and related industries… and two leaders welcomed the convening of the economic Forum during the visit, which was crowned by the signing of several contracts, treaties and conventions… President Ali Bongo expressed his strong support of his country for the request made by the Kingdom of Morocco which aims at obtaining the status of observer in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)”. Also, in the statement, “… and on the issue of the Moroccan Sahara, President Ali Bongo is keen to renew the support of the Gabonese Republic to a strong and durable Sahara with a Moroccan identity and united territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco… and also confirmed that a peaceful and permanent settlement for this regional conflict can only be reached on the basis of the Moroccan initiative to grant the Sahara self-autonomy rule within the framework of the sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco.” End.

It is obvious from all this that the king’s visit to these countries is strongly correlated with the Sahara issue, and to stop the American political and economic interference, and that this was commissioned by Britain and by the approval of France. Moreover that the King took over the role Gaddafi in guarding the interests of Europe (Britain) in Africa on the face of America’s political and economic attack.

Thus the rulers in Muslim countries stimulate the service of the interests of the Kaffir colonists, putting the interests of Muslims behind their backs, They sold their Akhira cheaply for the Dunya of others not theirs and did not take heed in what came over the people before them of disgrace in the Dunya.

وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَخْزَى وَهُمْ لَا يُنْصَرُونَ

“But the punishment of the Hereafter is more disgracing, and they will not be helped”

(Fussilat: 16)

7 Rajab 1435 AH
6/5/2014 CE