Western Sahara without amnesia and manipulation

On the editorial page on Thursday June 11, 2020, in the Atalayar website, Alejandro Salamanca published an article under the title "Western Sahara, the long forgotten". The readers, however, deserve to have a broad, plural and different view of this article, with clarifications of unfounded or undocumented claims.  

The article stresses that the Polisario Front seems to have lost the support of the Spanish government on two levels: clearly, first, by "ceasing to recognize the 'diplomatic passports' issued by the Polisario Front" and, second, by not including the SADR flag in the institutional act of Africa Day, last May 25. In my opinion, these two decisions show coherence in Spain's foreign policy.  

Spain, like all EU countries and most countries in the world, does not recognise SADR. Countries that respect international law cannot recognise a supposed republic established in a foreign territory, without a people, without a territory, without the exercise of sovereignty. Out of logic and coherence, Spain cannot accept the so-called "diplomatic passport" issued by the SADR, nor can the rest of the European countries. It is the Algerian regime that incubated the virtual SADR in its image. It is Algeria which issues Algerian passports so that the delegates, self-styled diplomats, and leaders of the Polisario can move between countries. 

The same goes for "the SADR flag which was not included in the institutional event of Africa Day on last May 25". If Spain, a country which does not recognise SADR, were to include on the map of Africa the territory of Western Sahara with the flag of that virtual entity, it would be committing a flagrant contradiction in its diplomatic position and, moreover, would be distorting the real and prevailing situation on the ground. In the territory of Western Sahara, the flag flying today is the Moroccan one.

The article surprises with an unfounded accusation against Morocco and Spain. The article states that: "Morocco, let us remember, occupied the Sahara at the end of 1975 together with Mauritania - with the approval of Spain, which was facing the Franco succession - and caused the forced displacement of several tens of thousands of Saharawis...". No United Nations document contains any reference confirming such a serious and irresponsible accusation of "occupation" with Spain's "approval".  

The article is silent and jumps on important facts, for example, there was agreement and unanimity among all parties (Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria and the Polisario) for Spain to leave the Sahara immediately. Morocco, to achieve this, contemplated the peaceful way and the diplomatic action of negotiation, while the Polisario, on the contrary, was born as an armed movement, sponsored by Algeria and Libya, with the predetermined option of carrying out an armed struggle against Spain to expel it from the territory.  

During the visit of the UN investigative commission to the Sahara in May 1975, the Polisario not only expressed the demand for an immediate exit, but also encouraged demonstrations against Spain, shouting in an insulting manner "Out with Spain" and "death to Spain". The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, Pedro Cortina Mauri, expressed to the members of the Congress of Deputies: "During the week when [the UN mission] was present, a series of demonstrations took place, all of them conditioned by the Polisario Front, asking for independence and many of them contrary to our country". He also pointed out that on the "eve of the arrival of the mission there was also the capture of two patrols by the Polisario Front, an incident which was to influence the whole process of decolonisation". 

Another fact of vital importance that was not mentioned was the Green March, the march of 350,000 unarmed Moroccan civilians towards the Sahara, a measure of political pressure which resulted in the adoption of resolution 380 by the Security Council on November 6, 1975. That resolution was content to deplore the Green March, while urging the parties to negotiate. Of course, if it had been an invasion, as stated in the article, albeit a welcome one, the U.N. would have condemned Morocco.  

Spain, as a result, was caught between Algeria and Morocco at a crucial moment for a change towards a democratic regime that would be impossible to achieve with the colonial weight on its back. The project of Franco's strongman, Luis Carrero Blanco, which consisted in creating a false nationalism, carrying out a trick self-determination so that Franco's Spain would remain forever in the Sahara, failed. Spain had no choice but to choose between Algeria and Morocco. Algeria aspired not only to be the first power in the Mediterranean, as its president Bumedian declared, but also to be the exit to the Atlantic Ocean with its eyes on the Canary Islands; it counted on Cubillo, leader of IMPAIAC, to do so. In the context of the Cold War, the danger of installing Soviet bases in the Sahara was looming.  

Between two difficult options, Spain opted for the one it considered least harmful to its needs and interests: it negotiated with Morocco, in accordance with the aforementioned resolution, which urged the parties to conduct in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The negotiation culminated on November 14 with the declaration of Madrid by which the Sahara was decolonized. The declaration was deposited with the UN Secretary General and the General Assembly took note of it on December 10, 1975.   

The article refers to the "1,700-kilometre-long wall of sand and anti-personnel mines to prevent the Polisario and the Saharawi refugees from gaining access to the occupied territories". In this regard, it should be recalled that the aforementioned retaining wall put an end to armed incursions by Polisario, incursions which came from Algerian territory and in which all kinds of aggressions and terrorist acts were committed against property and the civilian population, including acts of piracy against Spanish fishing boats. The Polisario killed civilians and abducted Saharans and Spaniards who were taken - as hostages - to its bases in Tindouf. Since Morocco had erected that costly retaining wall, it had put an end to those terrorist acts against Spanish ships and citizens unconnected with the conflict. The Canary Islands Association of Victims of Terrorism (ACAVITE) keeps a register of 300 Spanish families who are victims of terrorist acts perpetrated by the Polisario. Because of the above, it is possible to point out that the article does not fully correspond to the reality of the facts. Morocco should be grateful for the construction of this defensive wall, which, moreover, made it clear that it was not the people in the Sahara who were in arms but armed gangs paid by Algeria. Thanks to that wall, Spanish fishing boats can now fish without any terrorist threat, merchant ships can sail in complete safety and aircraft can travel in that airspace normally.  

Furthermore, the wall has open passages for the population to pass through and does not affect the movement of people in the area. What was anomalous and often overlooked was that the border between Morocco and Algeria had been closed since 1994 by unilateral decision of the Algerian regime, and that border, together with that of the two Koreas, was the only one in the world that was closed.

When it is strongly affirmed that "MINURSO - by the way, the only UN mission without a mandate to denounce human rights abuses -, has limited itself to observe impassively and to postpone indefinitely the organization of the referendum", it is missing the truth and is giving way to disinformation and false propaganda from the Polisario and Algeria. 

It is not true that MINURSO is the only UN mission without a mandate on the subject of human rights. Different UN missions do not contemplate such a mission because not all conflicts are the same. There are missions created as a result of a conflict as envisaged by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and other missions created under Chapter VI which concerns the peaceful settlement of disputes. The dispute over the territory of Western Sahara, known as the former Spanish Sahara or Moroccan Western Sahara, has always been dealt with under chapter VI. Therefore, MINURSO was established through specific negotiations and agreements between the parties, with a determined and well-defined mission. No change can take place outside of an agreement between the parties and not by decision of the UN Security Council.  

MINURSO's mission is essentially to monitor the ceasefire and organise the referendum. The holding of the referendum has not been possible because the Polisario wanted it to be held to its satisfaction with guaranteed results in its favour or, as Cortina Mauri declared, "a predetermined self-determination" (1 ), which explains the reason for the Polisario's self-proclamation of SADR before the holding of the referendum on self-determination. In 1975, the Polisario declared before the UN Committee on the visit to the Sahara that the Saharawi population was about 400,000, and in order to receive aid today it claims that Tindouf (Algeria) is home to more than 200,000 people, but instead during the preparation of the list of voters for the referendum it insisted that only those on the Spanish census had the right to vote, thus excluding more than the three parts of the population it declared. In fact, some tribes listed on the Spanish census were also rejected by the Polisario. Morocco could not accept an exclusionary referendum and insisted on the participation of all Saharawis without exception. Under these circumstances, the UN considered the referendum to be inapplicable. Therefore, MINURSO currently only monitors the ceasefire and performs other tasks agreed between the parties. Including the issue of human rights, as the Polisario intends, would mean starting other negotiations and walking on new paths instead of concentrating on the main thing: negotiating a fair, lasting and realistic solution by consensus between the parties as indicated in the Security Council resolutions.  

Finally, MINURSO does not "postpone indefinitely the organization of the referendum" as is wrongly stated, because that decision does not fall within its competence, but rather directly within the competence of the Security Council. It is clear by now that the referendum to choose between two extreme options - independence or integration - was abandoned many years ago, and was replaced in 2001 by the draft "Framework Agreement" (See UN report S/2001/613 of June 20 2001). In this Framework Agreement, the two extreme options were abandoned in favour of a third option, an intermediate solution (based on a broad autonomy) which was rejected by Algeria and its Polisario. Algeria and Polisario, in turn, presented a solution based on the sharing of the Sahara as a counter-proposal. Morocco rejected this proposal. Since then, the UN makes no mention of the referendum, but urges the parties to negotiate a lasting, fair, consensual, realistic and pragmatic solution. 

(1) Pedro Cortina Mauri's intervention on the subject of the decolonisation of the former Spanish Sahara - The session's record of the Congress of Deputies. NO. 32 MARCH 15, 1978.