Voices

Views from elsewhere

Why Morocco must not be allowed to join the African Union

The country's occupation of Western Sahara is one of international diplomacy’s greatest failures.

By Tom Stevenson Published 06 June 2012 15:16

A Sahrawi refugee walks in a Western Sahara refugee camp. Photograph: Getty Images

“What does Morocco mean to an Englishman?” George Orwell asked in one of his finer essays. “Camels, castles, palm-trees, Foreign Legionnaires, brass trays and bandits.” That was 1939. But whatever Morocco means to an Englishman today it probably isn’t "occupation, refugees, and landmines".

Morocco is a standard tourist destination and is held up as a model for Arab and African development alike. It may, therefore, come as something of a shock to hear that Morocco is the only African country excluded from membership of the African Union (Madagascar, Mali, and Guinea-Bissau have all been "suspended" since 2009 and 2012 respectively).

This is not something that sits well with King Mohammed VI or his new Government, and on Wednesday a diplomatic team in Rabat started Morocco’s latest push for membership. Kindly voices from the AU have also started to exercise their larynxes on the matter, such as prominent Tanzanian MP, Edward Lowassa Ngayai, who backed bringing Morocco into the AU fold last month.

Morocco was elbowed out of the AU’s predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1984 after the organization finally recognised the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the exiled government of Western Sahara, which Morocco invaded and occupied in 1976 and has held by force ever since.

Western Sahara represents one of international diplomacy’s greatest failures. When the Spanish left in 1975, Sahara was to be the last country on the continent to go through decolonisation; it would forever mark the end of the sanguinary history of empire in Africa. Instead it is Africa’s last colony.

The occupation has left hundreds of thousands of Sahrawi disenfranchised, and somewhere between 90,000 and 200,000 have fled as refugees, most of whom currently live in the Tindouf refugee camp in Southern Algeria, and in similar camps in Mauritania. The Moroccan army has established a segregation wall over 2000km long and surrounded by landmines, going through Western Sahara. Sahara’s resources are plundered, and its people continue to suffer.

The United Nations response to the occupation has been nothing short of a disgrace. Though the UN recognises the occupation is illegal, it has utterly failed to do anything about it. The UN has maintained a peacekeeping mission meant to hold a referendum on autonomy in Sahara (MINURSO) since 1991, but it has no mandate to monitor human rights abuses, a skeleton staff, and thanks to France’s Security Council veto has failed to produce a referendum for 21 years.

In spite of all this, it was in Western Sahara’s Gdeim Izik camp that the political protest movements in North Africa began, two months before the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. The Western Sahara protests received little recognition, let alone backing, in national newspapers, nor did anyone call for the end of the authoritarian regime that was its target. Moroccan security forces dismantled the 6000 tent camp, and the movement, by force.

The African Union is undoubtedly a corrupt and weak institution, and includes countries with even worse human rights records than Morocco. But the one break in over 35 years of international inertia on the occupation of Western Sahara has been the AU’s stand for independence, and refusal to admit the membership of Morocco.

If regional institutions are capable of having any impact at all on global justice (a question to which the answer may well be no), then it can only be by making membership for countries on the peripheries of regional blocks conditional on ending their abuses of human rights, something which has arguably been achieved to some extent with the European Union.

A Chatham House report once compared an AU human rights court to “whistling in the wind”, but its policy on Western Sahara and Moroccan membership is one success in a list so short that it could be inscribed on one of Orwell’s brass trays. If it abandons that stance now, the AU will have to say it is happy living with a colonial Africa.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Tom Stevenson

View the discussion thread.

31 comments

Mon, 2012-08-06 21:09 — Abdullah Al-Maghrebi (not verified)

Long live Morocco! Western Sahara is Moroccan land

Thu, 2012-07-05 16:42 — RIGHT SAHAROUI (not verified)

ALSO ALGERIAN IT'S SISTER OF THE WORLD BELIEVE OE NOT THAT RIGHT , ABOUT AL QAEDA IN GRAND SAHARA , IT'S POLITICE AND GET MONET FROM MOROCCAN NOW IT'S NOT AL QAEDA, IT'S MAFIA MOROCCAN FOR SURE ,
NOW THIS MAFIA OF MOROCCAN DON'T HAVE CENTRAL, IT'S WORKING ON PROBLEM THE COUNTERS TO GIVE LOOKING MOROCCAN IS SAFE PLACE IN AFRICA , WHEN 20 février OUT TO STREET FOR RABIAA ARABI WHAT GOVERNMENT OF MOROCCAN , MAKING A BOOM IN ARGANA CAFE IN MARRAKESH .

Thu, 2012-07-05 16:19 — RIGHT SAHAROUI (not verified)

in sum
MOROCCO GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE IS GOOD WITH LIEING ON THE WORLD
IF SOMEONE WANT EXPLAIN , LAAYOUNE OCCUPIED IT'S NOT CITY IT'S POLICE-STATION , AND THE KING HASSAN 2 WHAT HE SAY I WANT LAND NO HUMAN , HE WANT KILL ALL SAHARWIN IN WESTERN SAHARA , SAHARWI PEOPLE WANT FREEDOM SAHARA IT'S LAST COLONY IN AFRICA , AND MOROCCAN ARMY ,DO A BAD MOST SERIOUS CRIMES IN SAHARA OCCUPIED KILL CHILDREN , WOMEN ,MEN , ...........
I TELL THE GOVERNMENT MOROCCAN AND PEOPLE , WESTERN SAHARA IS NOT MOROCCAN , THIS LAST TIME TO MOROCCAN IN WESTERN SAHARA
AND THANKS FOR ARTICL

Wed, 2012-07-04 19:16 — MalloryTailor

No unique polity has existed in that region. WS is a residue of colonialism... Why on earth would people defend it???? Everyone knows why Algerian dictators defends and bankrolls it, why sponsors of terrorism like Qaddafi championed their cause, but why others walk into public discourse defending snake oil salesmen, please go find better company Tom Stevenson or at least try to find evidence that Western Sahara was ever a nation then come back to us admitting you wasted your time ever thinking about this WS mythology. Let us know also why Britain is in the Falklands but Morocco cannot even touch its historic body parts like Sahara. Is it because Britain can pay the islanders to be content better than Argentine can. That sounds like a tyranny of the rich. whoever pays best is in the right. http://www.squidoo.com/best-mixer-reviews

Sat, 2012-06-30 23:56 — Daoudi (not verified)

We already have nothing to do in the algerian union

Wed, 2012-06-13 12:49 — Hassan moulay (not verified)

I have a question I would like you to answer in all honesty !

How much have you been given by Algeria to write this article ?

You are a money blinded man and it is a shame that you belong to those ignorant journalists who don't care about peace in the world as long as they get money through lies and fabrications.

40 million Moroccans strongly believe that what you call Western Sahara is the origin of their culture, civilization and history.

you are offending and provoking a whole nation. You are only trying to stir trouble in the whole region mistakenly believing that you are in a safe haven.

Try to spread peace instead of hatred! Try so seek deep knowledge instead of superficial one !

Sun, 2012-06-10 13:58 — Armin ius (not verified)

A close inspection of the members of the African Union (Zimbabwe for example) would lead one to conclude that Morocco is something of a beacon of light in the dark continent. Quite why Morocco would want to be a member of the African Union and be associated with some of the most corrupt and unpleasant countries on the face of the planet is beyond me.

Sat, 2012-06-09 22:10 — firdusss (not verified)

It was a difficult time trying to distinguish all these lines from propaganda.

"Western Sahara, which Morocco invaded and occupied in 1976 and has held by force ever since."

"Invaded"..."Occupied"..."Held by force" are the wrong words to use unless you also use them to describe the aftermath of French abandonment of their part of Morocco. How else can revolutionaries get and maintain independence without using force? force is vital. If i am gonna enter the independence seeking business i better be prepared to use it. Western Sahara has not been a tangible thing... however Morocco has been since Golden Age/Medieval Age visible in what people is telling is the Western Sahara. No unique polity has existed in that region. WS is a residue of colonialism...why on earth would people defend it????everyone knows why algerian dicators defends and bankrolls it, why sponsors of terrorism like Qaddafi championed their cause, but why others walk into public discourse defending snake oil salesmen, please go find better company Tom Stevenson or at least try to find evidence that Western Sahara was ever a nation then come back to us admitting you wasted your time ever thinking about this WS mythology. let us know also why britain is in the falklands but Morocco cannot even touch its historic body parts like Sahara. is it because britain can pay the islanders to be content better than argentines can. that sounds like a tyranny of the rich. whoever pays best is in the right.

Besides the Sahara's Moroccaness, the rebels who want to rule Western Sahara (Polisario) violate every value and principle supposedly cherished by progressives.

Fri, 2012-06-08 11:02 — Manfredo (not verified)

If the Sahrawi nomads want to create a pure Arab state for themselves only on African soil, they can forget it. Africa is for the Africans.

If these deluded Arab nomads who are parked, sheltered and sponsored in Tindouf by the Algerian militiray junta and the late Qaddafi regime want to follow the mirage of a homeland, they can get on their camels and head back to Arabia to estalish their pure Arab state.

The last experiment of this sort based on race purity happened in Germany and we all know what all that leads to.

The native inhabitans of Morocco, the Amazigh (Berbers for the ill-informed) are a tolerant, welcoming bunch of people. But they are not naive. They have grown to accept the diversity of Morocco in language, culture, religion and ethnic groups under the age-old monarchy.

If anyone disagrees with them and want to have their own pure Arab state, they will never ever have it, not in a million years.

And as we witness the collapse of the panarabist regimes one by one starting from Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and hopefully soon Syria, the Moroccans cannot wait to see the time when the Algerian militiray junta and those Arab traitors who sold their soul to them for a fist full of petrodollars collapse.

The Algerian can buy time with the oil riches and buy the likes of Robert Mugabe. But that will not last. Sooner or later the Algerian people will want their freedom and they will get it by hook or by crook.

Till that time, this geopolitical problem will persist.

Fri, 2012-06-08 10:31 — thanks autor (not verified)

thank you so much for this article which has cleared , the reality in western Sahara, and I like to withdraw your attention to all the comments which we see in this article are all supported by Moroccan intelligence , so be sure the Sahrawis will never leave their rights of self determination, so my colleague the author , you should continue your struggle to clarify the image of this last colony in Africa and we need your many examples of you
thank again to say the truth all my high considerations

Fri, 2012-06-08 10:30 — thanks autor (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-07 18:27 — Qatani (not verified)

Morocco has an open door policy for Saharawi people who wish to return and live in their ancestral homeland. The 90,000 and 200,000 refugees could decide to stop being refugees any time they like and come back to Morocco. The problem is the decision is not for them too make. Despite their inalienable rights as asserted in the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Saharawis movements are subject to the whim of the Polisario rebels who run the refugee camps and ultimately answer Algerian paymasters.
Anyone who studies this subject careful will notice that the Western Sahara has never existed and is only upheld by Moroccos strategic rivals, and formerly Ghaddafi, he identified with the Polisario a great deal. I wonder why.
You can go to any country and find some people willing to be paid in exchange for wishing to secede from their nation. Thats why our primary concern should be the integrity of nations first.
When is Spain gonna decolonise Cueta and Melilla and give it back to the Morocco???????? instead of pretending to be concerned with human rights when they are really little Francos and Francoistas in disguise.

Thu, 2012-06-07 17:41 — Someone bewildered (not verified)

“What does Morocco mean to an Englishman?”

Glad you prepared a rod for your own back by quoting Orwell there.
'Englishman' can be a proxy for westerner, and they knew nothing about Morocco then nor do they (true specialists aside) today. Yet now and again some forget this and find themselves lost somewhere describing southern Morocco as "the last colony in Africa". This conclusion is given the green light by pure ignorance usually, but when it is not, it is predatory propaganda from any number of sordid sources, like Algeria, like Spain, and perhaps not only limited to those humanly bankrupt societies. Whatever is motiving this canard against Moroccan territorial integrity it is not serving human well-being.

"Western Sahara" --the very notion and the borders on some so-called maps-- had their full origin in the minds of colonists, that is to say, that they had no precedent, no pre-figuration, or any native inspiration whatsoever to be built upon. Before the colonists intruded into southern Morocco, no one heard of "western Sahara". The tribes living in that area contemporaneously with the Spanish invasion where loyal to the Moroccan ruler. Although the Spanish of course did not respect the tribes’ full humanity and their context within Morocco and proved it by inventing their "Western Sahara," landing it on top of everyone heads. How arrogant and reckless of them.

Why anyone is averse to Morocco's in-progress effort to undo Spain’s imperialist legacy, thereby sanitizing and restoring the pre-colonial/pre-crime dynamic is not beyond me, for as I have explained it is dubious in form, predatory in substance and hope. If someone breaks into your home, causes a mess and then leaves, would you tolerate some loud voice, after the incident, trying to deter you from clearing the mess ie eliminating any trace of the crime . Normality must be pursued.

The most conspicuous irony (or hypocrisy) or scandal! is that there are indeed colonies in Africa, ruled by a race of people who by their own admission are aliens to Africa: they are ruling two enclaves (which they call Cueta and Melilla) on Moroccan African soil, even as I write these words, what's more the Moroccan Muslim Africans living and working there are not allowed to fully vote! in the land of their ancestors. Who are these occupiers? None other than the Spanish. Those imperialists never truly left, they are in Africa right now with their apartheid colonies, stolen from Morocco in the Middle Ages.

Will the African Union speak on this? Europeans are still colonising Africa, preventing Africans from being treated equally.

Where is the World outcry, the marches, the polemics?

The Spanish propaganda defends the colonies by following this template: Spain got hold of the enclaves before Morocco existed. So we can keep them and maintain a presence in Morocco, (we need to be in Morocco occupying it so they can better hear our street protests against the Sahara occupation).

(1)Morocco has existed for 1,200 years. It is slanderous and integrally racist to say it rather came to life after the French protectorate in 1956.
(2) Spain got the enclaves in the 15th century well after Moroccans established their national consciousness and sense of national loss triggered by the theft . Moroccans have always tried to get those two cities back since the Portuguese stole them.
(3) The capture of the enclaves and refusal to return them means that the age of European colonialism is not over.

Thu, 2012-06-07 15:37 — Enzo de Vincentis (not verified)

Very well written article. Don't let Moroccans convince you otherwise: They have invaded a country and are repressing its people. The only reason why they have gotten away with it is because two countries with a permanent seat in the UN Security Council (USA and France) prefer to give priority to their economic and political interests than to the right to self-determination. In Latin America, we are very proud to stand next to our African brothers and sisters against the remnants of colonialism. We will not let the Sahrawi people down and we hope the African Union will do the same.

Thu, 2012-06-07 19:23 — Qatani (not verified)

Invaded a country? What country? Western Sahara has never been a country my friend, honestly never. Check this yourself. It has however been an idea, produced and used as a banner by some very shady and unscrupulous folks.

France and the USA do not recognise Morocco's sovereignty over its southern provinces, so where do you get this idea that they help Morocco "get away" with anything?

In Latin America you should focus on your own liberation from the descendants of Spanish colonists who rule South America to this day! I stand with the natives peoples of South America who have suffered a genocide of numbers, of culture, and of agency. When will the Spanish settlers be toppled?

Thu, 2012-06-07 12:48 — ahmarbilaal (not verified)

Stevenson alleged the acknowledged area “one of all-embracing diplomacy’s greatest failures” and argued that Morocco should not be accustomed to join, back the AU’s action is the alone connected institutional burden on Morocco.

_____________
jigsaw puzzles

Thu, 2012-06-07 11:04 — Fred Man (not verified)

The author of the piece is mistaken on so many levels. I have not got the time to enumerate all of them at the moment.

But let me put across few home truths to enlighten the readers.

First of all, Morocco is the only country in Africa which still has two cities (Ceuta and Melilia), plus few islands occupied by a European state, Spain. So some of your assertions about current colonialism in African are wrong.

May I remind you that Morocco has been at the coalfront of European imperialism since the fall of Granada in the 15th century before any other African country had been touched by colonialism.

And for that, we are still paying the price for our centuries-old picnic in Europe, not to mention how we have been fighting to liberate our land village by village, hill by hill, mountain by mountain, river by river and oasis by oasis unlike many African countries which got their freedom thanks to Western diplomats' drawing of borders on maps Banksy-style.

Point two, Morocco withdrew from the Organization of African Unity after the club of military dictators ganged up on the Moroccan monarchy, which they are naturally and understandably allergic to, to recognize a "state", more exactly a clan, that does not exit anywhere on the map except in the shifting chess pieces of the Algerian military junta, which is still clinging to power despite the turmoil in the region.

Let me inform your reader who has been moving heaven and Earth recently to stop Morocco from taking its natural place among the democratic states in the African Union, it is none other than that paragon of virtue Robert Mugabe. Of course, he does not want to strenghten the hands of the democratic club within the African Union. He wants his club to stay as it is packed to the brim with tyrants and despots.

Three, the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has all the prefixes fit for a totalitarian regime that does not recognize the diversity of the many tribes and clans that have lived in the Great Sahara from the native inhabitant the Amazigh (Berber), Black Africans, Touareges, Berber Jews plus the minority Arab nomads.

So none of these people would want to live under a self-proclaimed Arab regime in the mould of the Algerian military junta or the mad dog of Lybia whose support for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic you cannot deny.

So thank you very much Mr Tom Stevenson for giving me the opportunity to respond to your one-dimensional piece.

PS. Are you, Mr Tom Stevenson, by any chance a member of the advisory group which Carne Ross heads, and which advises the Polisario Front? If that is the case, you should put a disclaimer in your article stating that you are on the payroll of the Algerian military junta. No one wants the readers to be misled.

Thu, 2012-06-07 10:23 — Formula 1 (not verified)

Noticias de Formula 1

Thu, 2012-06-07 10:06 — Dr Ben Kirat (not verified)

I wonder what the writer thinks of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands?
Dr Ben Kirat

Thu, 2012-06-07 00:31 — Youssef (not verified)

Prior to any journalistic writing on any subject, the author should seek knowledge and do their homework. The so called journalist in this article has got all his facts wrong, I would stick to three misleading facts
1 Morocco withdrew in 1984 from the Organisation of the African Unity not as mentioned in the article "to hear that Morocco is the only African country excluded from membership of the African Union", even admitted himself that he heard it, hence he hasn't done any search.
2 Morocco was the only country in the region before colonisation from France and Spain. Never ever existed a country called Sahara till 1976.
In the article "When the Spanish left in 1975, Sahara was to be the last country on the continent to go through
decolonisation"
3 The writer seems to know everything and knows nothing. Ceuta and Melilla are both Moroccan cities which are still under a Spanish occupation, aren't they the last colonies in Africa??
In my view very poor writer. Do not write again on your weakest subject, Diamond Jubilee will be a perfect subject for you to write on since you're English.

Thu, 2012-06-07 00:31 — Youssef (not verified)

Thu, 2012-06-07 00:30 — Youssef (not verified)

Wed, 2012-06-06 23:50 — Moroccan in uk (not verified)

I am puzzled at how such a biased and ill informed piece of irritating shite, ended up been posted on new statement even if it is under a blog heading...
Morocco left the AU in protest when the Polisario were admitted and giving a seat. This would never have happened if it wasnot for the evil manoeuvring of pariah state Algeria. Morocco Was not expelled and as far as I know, he doesn't wish to go back to full membership of the AU as long as those thugs are still allowed to hold a seat.

Wed, 2012-06-06 21:27 — Ms Perezilo (not verified)

The title for this article should be in fact: 'Why Tom Stevenson must not be allowed to write any more articles'. He's incredibly obtuse in his analysis of the situation. He clearly has not bothered to look into the history of the Western Sahara and its integral links with Morocco before Spanish occupation in the 19th Century and during its occupation. Among many of the blunders within this article is describing the Sahrawis in terms that indicate that they are a homogeneous group, talking about them as such shows the naivety and complete lack of understanding by the author of the situation on the ground. Describing Morocco as 'colonisor' and referring to its peaceful civilian march into the Western Sahara as an invasion was my favourite...The irony occupied becomes invader!

Wed, 2012-06-06 19:44 — Adrian.D (not verified)

I hope Tom Stevenson doesn't call himself a journalist. it really has been a while since i read a rubbish article like this.

Wed, 2012-06-06 19:38 — M. Ezroura (not verified)

So much is misleading information in this article. Orwell's statement is xenophobic and even racist; he does compare the Moroccans to ants in his article on Morocco. This is areminder of that other enlightened novelist of "the heart of darkness"!! To make the story short, here are some key questions for the author to integrate in the argument of the essay:
1. If Spain and France colonized Morocco and shared/split it between them in 1912, both the French part and the Spanish part should be returned to their original owner, Morocco. Yes or no? So Morocco's southern provinces have been recuperated after the death of Franco.
2. Does the Polisario have a history? Yes, it is a history that combines Algerian aspirations, emerging republicanist politics among leaders of newly independent countries, the Cold War (USA vs. USSR), and the aspirations of Radicals anti-Monarchic (mostly Marxist-Leninist grouping) Moroccans of the 70s. Alwali and Al Marrakchi and friends departed from Rabat to attack the State from the fringes to align it with the Pro. USSR regimes of the region. Young polisaris were shipped to Cuba for training; some of them even came back and tried to register at the university in Rabat!! What an irony is history -- to see what is happening now with the Arab Spring, etc...
3. Tribal links in the Sahara region and the changing dunes as borders have challenged all dreams of carving a state with defined borders.
4. Haven't many countries changed their attitude in this case in favor of Morocc; certainly when Morocco rejoins the AU, more will help solve the problem in its favor!

If the writer can integrated these elements in his article, some approximation of the truth will be there and some fair view of the tragedy of the Sahrawis who have been kept hostages for decades by their own people will be clarified to the world.

Wed, 2012-06-06 19:24 — simo (not verified)

Dude...You are misinformed and trying to spread wrong ideas for people who are not familiar with the subject. The Sahara, Algeria and Mauritania were all part of morocco, Algeria, blinded by their greed, is still pushing to back up a bunch of bandits to take control over southern Morocco...The only thing is, for each and every single Moroccan it is part of our land and we'll never let it be taken away, and if we wanted blood shed, we would have annihilated those thugs..and Algeria if it gets in the way!

Wed, 2012-06-06 17:02 — Morcelli (not verified)

The title should say " What does Morocco mean to an ignorant Englishman" ?.

Wed, 2012-06-06 16:52 — Karl West (not verified)

I think the author is blind or has sipped some Algerian spiked drink.
Let me remind you Mr:
-Morocco withdrew from AU as a protest of admitting a phantom state that exists in the Algerian desert. So please go and study the circumstances and who declared what.
-Western Sahara was never an independent state except in the minds of thos shallow who can't read.
-Historical ties have always been maintained in spite of Spanish occupation.
-The goatee loser proclaimed president of RASD in exile is himself Moroccan born in Marrakech and was in the communist party that sought to overturn the monarchy and set up a failed state.
-UN documents don't refer to Morocco as occupier but administering power.
-Also please note that half of the polisario or polyzeros have returned to Morocco.
-Morocco won't give up an inch of Western Sahara and everyone 100% in favour of all options if Moroccan integrity is tarnished. Europe could regret the day some would interfere in internal affairs
-Moroccan foreign minister has clearly indicated that cannot join the corrupt organisation unless RASD is kicked out
-Finally, Mr, go and spend some time in the library

Wed, 2012-06-06 16:43 — Chad (not verified)

This article is full of mistakes. Morocco was indeed a member of the African Union and decided to boycott this organization after Polisario was admitted as an observer. That was at a time wheAn Lybia (Khadafi) and Algeria and other pro-communist and pro-soviet countries were in majority in the African organisation and supported Polisario against a pro-western regime, Morocco. It's a shame for a journalist to be so wrong and inaccurate !