The International Court of Justice And The Western Sahara

The story is happening in december 1974. At the the request of the U.N General Assembly, the U.N Secretary General asks the International Court of Justice (ICJ) located in The Hague (Netherlands) to give an Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara issue by answering two questions :

1. Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakeit El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spaon a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius) ? and 2. What were the legal ties between that territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity ?

On October 16th, 1975, the Court delivered its advisory opinion which came like this :

" With regard to Question I, "Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?",
- decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
- was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius).
With regard to Question II, "What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?", the Court
- decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;
- was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion;
- was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Mauritanian entity of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion ".

That's it.

This is the exact ICJ Opinion on the Western Sahara. But that's half (or three quarters, depending on your position on the conflict) of the cup...the court completed its opinion quoted above by a "penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion" that explains the nature of the ties between the Western Sahara and Morocco and Mauritania. So here is that juicy part fully quoted again :

" The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory ".

In the war of arguments that characterizes the Western Sahara conflict, both Morocco and the Polisario try to use the ICJ decision to their favor. Morocco holds on to the decision itself which recognizes the existence of legal ties between the kingdom and the territory of Western Sahara. Morocco further relies on the first part of the explanatory paragraph which recognizes the existence of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan (King) of Morocco and some sahrawi tribes. On the other hand, Polisario uses the other part of the explanatory paragaraph which doesn't recognize the existence of Moroccan sovereignty on the territory and aknowledge the right of self determination of the peoples of the territory.

The same thing happens with both parties supporters. Don't be surprised when reading about the subject if you find that the original text of the ICJ Advisory Opinion is largely cut to reflect only one position or to try to influence readers.

Polisario and Morocco meet around one table in The Netherlands.

Don't be surprised, the information is true...a Dutch-american has succeeded in bringing a Polisario representative and Morocco around one table. Here is the story : As part of her project to prepare meals from 80 countries, Jenny Jaffe has invited a Polisario representative in the Netherlands to cook couscous for her. Nothing about Morocco for now, but look at the picture showing the ingredients, the couscous brand is called DARI. If you google DARI couscous, you will find that it's a company located in the Moroccan city of Sale. So it's a Moroccan couscous.
Obviously, Jaffe has succeeded in a pre-negotiations scoop by bringing Polisario and Morocco around one table ! Bravo Jaffe !

P.S: I should mention that One Hump or Two was the first to inform about the Sahrawi couscous but he missed the ingredients part !

Speaking in the name of Sahrawis

In the wake of the U.N meetings about the Western Sahara and the buzz surrounding the Moroccan Autonomy plan, websites and blogs started to be filled with analyses, points of view, and comments about the issue. However, the resulting contributions represent generally the ideas of Americans and foreigners. Some of these analysts and commentators rely on the same source they are themselves alimenting. Others rely on few comments made here and there by some Sahrawis, draw a complete "analysis" of the Western Sahara, and put words in the mouth of Sahrawis as if they have been living in the Western Sahara for years.

Photo Courtesy of slapps.org

I mentioned in another occasion that the missing part in these discussions is the voice of those who are most concerned: the Sahrawis. I think there are two reasons for that. The first and main one is language. English, as my post deals with English websites, is not a popular language in all North Africa, much more in the Western Sahara where people, at most, speak Spanish as a second language. The second reason is access to computers and Internet. What is a daily life accessory in the U.S is a luxury in the region. Although the Moroccan side of the Sahara has a modern infrastructure and people can afford to buy computers there, still it's not at the reach of the average person. In the camps, it's worse as refugees have still to go to U.N facilities and fill forms to make phone calls (I still don't understand that procedure, why people in the camps have to go to the U.N to make phone calls ?). It's obvious that their access to a computer and to Internet would be a monumental task.

For these reasons, Sahrawis are the missing voice in English websites and blogs. Of course, some Sahrawis do participate to Internet discussions, but they are only a few and definitely can't represent the multiple array of sahrawis that live in the Western Sahara or in the camps in Algeria, either in terms of ethnicity (belonging to a specific sahrawi tribe) or politically (pro-Morocco, pro-Polisario, neutral or another status).

In a complex conflict such as the Western Sahara, hearing from all the Sahrawis is important. But when some analysts jump on that factor and start generalizing that the Sahrawis want this and that, then it's academically not honest. Some of that is coming from Polisario motto that it's the "only legitimate representative of the Sahrawis", therefore it's the only entity who can say what sahrawis want and act in their name. I think that's wrong. Just from my contacts with different Sahrawis, many of them don't recognize that motto and doesn't want Polisario to speak for them. Included in this category are Sahrawis loyal to the Moroccan monarchy living in Morocco and abroad. Furthermore, there has never been a general election, a referendum, or any kind of tribal council that elected Polisario as a representative. The Polisario Front doesn't want to discuss its "representativity" of the Sahrawi people and consider it a fait accompli that is not discussable. It's very antagonist from an organization which rejects the Moroccan fait accompli in the Western Sahara. This of course doesn't mean that Polisario don't speak in the name of certain sahrawis. I presume that Polisario members are abundant in the camps and that the refugees are to certain extent favorable to the Front (I aknowledge that I can't base my presumption on a solid survey or academic research).

The bottom line: Sahrawis are generally absent from Western Sahara debates in English. As long as this factor exists, there should be some restraints from speaking in the name of the Sahrawi people. On the other hand, efforts should be done to help Sahrawis express themselves in English. As an American who has done so much in the camps said "There is such a need for the Sahrawi to be able to have their own voice in our country".