| The United States, Morocco and the Western Sahara Dispute |
The Western Sahara dispute pits Morocco, which had annexed the former Spanish-controlled territory, against the Polisario Front, which seeks independence for the territory with the backing of Algeria. The United States has taken multiple approaches to the dispute. Early on, it played a key role diplomatically in pressing Spain to meet Rabat’s demands and accept the Madrid Treaty whereby Spain ceded the Sahara to Morocco in 1975. Since 1977 it has adopted a neutral stance toward the issue. The U.S. approach to the Western Sahara dispute for the past thirty years offers many insights into U.S. policy toward Morocco. The beginning of President Carter’s term saw a crisis in relations between the two countries that came to a head in 1978, when the U.S. froze arms sales to Morocco. The pretext was that Morocco had broken the terms of a bilateral military agreement signed in 1960 prohibiting the use of U.S. weapons outside internationally recognized borders. Tension eased the following year when President Carter approved the resumption of arms sales to Morocco under pressure from some members of Congress who saw Morocco as a strategic Cold War ally. Relations recovered under the Reagan administration, which viewed the conflict in the Western Sahara as part of the Cold War, branding the Polisario Front a Soviet ally. However, U.S. policy took the form of “positive neutrality,” which meant supporting Morocco militarily but not politically. Moreover, the United States stopped short of backing Morocco’s call for a referendum in the mid-1980s, and did not push Morocco to develop a political approach to the conflict. The United States also did not defend Morocco’s case in international arenas. At the end of the Cold War, Morocco lost its strategic significance to U.S. policy as old alliances lost importance. At the end of the Cold War, Morocco lost its strategic significance to U.S. policy as old alliances lost importance. This change also decreased American interest in the Western Sahara issue. However, what characterized George H. Bush’s presidency was the fact that it maintained a neutral stance and publicly called for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. In the early 1990s, Morocco supported the coalition forces in the first Gulf War and expressed readiness to mediate between Israel and the Arabs to help the U.S.–initiated peace process. All these policies can be seen as efforts to sway Washington’s position with regard to the Western Sahara dispute. However, these attempts met with little success as President Bush reiterated to the late King Hassan of Morocco in 1991 that the Western Sahara dispute was a matter for the United Nations to address. By taking this position, the United States on the one hand tried to improve its image and reaffirm its respect for international legitimacy. On the other hand, this neutral position reflected its policy goals in the Maghreb region in the 1990s —aiming to keep Morocco as a geostrategic ally without harming its economic interests in Algeria. During most of Clinton’s two terms, there was little change in the U.S. policy of neutrality that did not recognize Western Sahara as a Moroccan territory. However, toward the end of Clinton’s second term, a slight change occurred when Washington realized that diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute might fail and thus threaten to destabilize the region with renewed violence. Such instability could affect southern Europe negatively and jeopardize U.S. interests. Despite many instances of cooperation between Morocco and the United States during George W. Bush’s presidency, the United States maintained its neutral stance on the Western Sahara, although it intervened in other issues of interest to Rabat, such as mediating the dispute with Spain over Leila Island. The year 2003 saw a sudden shift in policy when the United States released a statement supporting the Baker plan, which offered two alternative solutions: either granting the Saharan provinces autonomy within a federal kingdom of Morocco with unspecified borders, or accepting the partition of the territory. The year 2003 saw a sudden shift in policy when the United States released a statement supporting the Baker plan, which offered two alternative solutions: either granting the Saharan provinces autonomy within a federal kingdom of Morocco with unspecified borders, or accepting the partition of the territory. However, this did not translate to a firm position as President Bush reiterated that any settlement would not be imposed on Rabat, acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue to Morocco’s internal politics. It was a stand that revealed the centrality of the war on terror in the Bush administration’s strategies, as it viewed the conflict in the Sahara as intertwined with Morocco’s cooperation in Washington’s antiterrorism campaign. Aware of this, Morocco adopted a rhetoric that linked the threat posed by the ongoing Western Sahara issue to the threat of terrorist groups spreading in North Africa. However, the linking of the two issues had limited effect because both sides of the conflict, Morocco and Algeria, were involved in the U.S. war on terror. Indeed, at times they were even forced by Washington to cooperate and exchange intelligence information on terrorism, particularly after the emergence of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). One way to examine the importance of the Western Sahara dispute for the United States is to compare the positions taken by Congress and the White House. One way to examine the importance of the Western Sahara dispute for the United States is to compare the positions taken by Congress and the White House. Congress is divided. Some support Morocco and emphasize Rabat’s key role in the war on terror and the Middle East conflicts, the strength of the historic U.S.–Moroccan ties, and the democratic reforms in the kingdom; others support the Sahrawis’ rights to self-determination and criticize Morocco’s record on human rights and its exploitation of the territory’s natural resources, dismissing argument about the historic nature of the relations between the two countries as a thing of the past. In recent years, the divide between the two camps has become more pronounced. As for the White House, the Bush administration changed its stance repeatedly. First, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton threatened to force the withdrawal of the UN mission from the Western Sahara. Later, the Bush administration went to another extreme, threatening to elevate the Western Sahara dispute from a Chapter VI to a Chapter VII issue. Such a change would have forced the sides of the conflict to comply with UN resolutions or face the consequences. Eventually, the administration returned to a more neutral policy. The fluctuations in the U.S. position reveal Washington’s interest in maintaining room for maneuver between its two strategic allies, Morocco and Algeria. This policy left both Algeria and Morocco feeling dissatisfied, but not threatened. As a Security Council member, the United States often expresses its position on the dispute through its acts in the UN. That is, through pressing the UN to maintain an indefinite involvement in the region by playing the role of the “tourist policeman.” The neutral role that the United States insists on maintaining also shows the different nature of its alliances with either side of the conflict. Morocco is an old ally that goes back to the Cold War and is a geostrategic gateway to southern Europe and Africa. It also provides the United States with political access to the Arab World, and Washington often uses Morocco as an “experimental field” in which it tests reforms and democratic efforts designed for the region. As for Algeria, the United States has taken an economic interest in the country following the end of the Cold War. The United States sees Algeria as a potential investment market and the scene of a future economic contest with China, a remnant of the Cold War rivalry. Early indications of the direction of Obama’s administration suggest that the Western Sahara dispute will be discussed in terms of tightly observed international legitimacy. The Western Saharan dispute is one of the most neglected international conflicts. The region has not developed enough to turn into an area where the United States and Europe (particularly France and Spain which display a more profound understanding of the conflict) compete for influence. Early indications of the direction of Obama’s administration suggest that the Western Sahara dispute will be discussed in terms of tightly observed international legitimacy. This is particularly relevant as the region is beginning to relive the Cold War spirit following the severance of ties between Morocco and Venezuela over the Western Sahara dispute, and Iran hinting that it might begin to support the Polisario Front after a recent diplomatic standoff with Morocco. Abdel-Rahim Al-Manar Slimi is professor of political sciences at the Mohammed V University in Morocco.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 1369
Comments (6)
Watchdog
said:
|
Although Morocco has been a strategic ally of the United States since the Cold War, the dispute over the Western Sahara does not trouble U.S. decision makers as much as other international conflicts do. Yet Morocco still views the United States as the most important external player in the controversy over the Western Sahara. The U.S. approach to the Western Sahara dispute for the past thirty years offers many insights into U.S. policy toward Morocco. 
hile MoroccoBoard.com encourages discussion on all subjects, including sensitive ones, the comments posted are solely the views of those submitting them. MoroccoBoard.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with the ideas, views, or opinions voiced in these comments. This is a moderated forum. Comments deemed abusive, offensive, or those containing profanity may not be published.
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Si Moktar So how do you explain this half hearted "complicity" that you talking about? why not just fully support Morocco and endorse its claim on the land; why keep on dily dalying about who's boss. America, my friend, is motivated by interest and interest only. Interst is something that proves to be mercurial and volatile, and hence the ambivalance of the American stand. |
Moktar
said:
|
the USA? Morocco cound not have maintained its presence in Western Sahara WITHOUT the assistance/complicity of both France and the USA. Surely if Iran were to offer support to Western Sahara that would only strengthen the USA's support of the Moroccan position? |
Watchdog
said:
|
keep your eyes on th ball Once again professor Slimi seems to dodge the real issue. let me spell it out for you. though this may not come as a chock to you on anyone who has been able to discern the the ever so predictable patter of the American foreign policy, the USA economic interest takes precedence to any other consideration. America is adddicted to oil and the party that has it occupies a warmer spot in America's heart. America is not on the fense on this issue, it is just playing politics as usual |
El Younsi Mohamed
said:
|
To Abdelssamad Attif Thank you brother Abedlssamad for your comment; I appreciate it. Yes, this part of our territory has been historically Moroccan, but our previous governments failed to find the proper method to deal with this issue, and certainly under estimated the potential of our ennemies! In fact that is one of the reason why this artificial conflict took the path which lead us to where we are now! I can proudly say that this artificial conflict changed completely since 2004. It is a different animal now, thanks to king MVI who stood up against belligerecny garnished with fake arguments! The Spanish colonial power relingquished this territory in 1975, and the Moroccan people honored that return by the Green March. Families from all over the nation renwed ties with their brothers and sisters of the southern provinces by hugs and kisses. We are not waiting for any thing to come back to us, not this part of the country anyway! The Sahara is in its Morocco, and Morocco is in its Sahara. When it comes to preserving the integrity of our territory, we are all Sahrawis. Thank you again and big thanks goes to our brother Abdel-Rahim Al-Manar Slimi, the author of this article. |
abdelssamad attif
said:
|
Sahara Marocain Every time since we know هي مشكلة تاريخية لا يمكن ان يتكرها احدا رغم انها قضية مفبركة ضدد وحدة المغرب لكن الكل يعلم والتاريخ ياكد هدا بان الصحرء كانت مغربية وستبقى مغربية وستعود قريبا الى حوزة المملكة المغربية فصبر قليل لان عودتها بات يظهر على الافق ان شاء الله يشترط التبصر والحكمة في هدا |
El Younsi Mohamed
said:
|
USA/Morocco/Sahara Al right, you gave a brief superficial historic overview regarding the relationship between the USA and Morocco based on the Sahara conflict! Within this perspective I would like to provide few comments. You mentioned few interesting points; however, you came short to elaborate or any of them! For instance, you mentioned the importance of geographic location of Morocco to the USA as geostrategic gateway to southern Europe, Africa and the Arab world; you talked about the participation of Morocco in the 1990 coalition against Saddam in his invasion to Kuwait, etc! Brother, the USA does need Morocco to be its gateway to southern Europe or anywhere in the world! The USA has military bases in Spain; it is engaged with the European nations for the achievement of the same strategic interest! The USA and UK are strong allies; for being a European country, the UK will be the strongest geostrategic gateway not only to Europe, Africa and the Arab world, but anywhere else in the world! Morocco does not offer the same opportunities, my friend! Do not forget what happened to Iraq of Saddam Hussein! Morocco is only a small part of the puzzle! Morocco can only be what you think it could be, if it continues with its democratic reforms, respect of human rights, and the promotion of tolerance and peace between its citizens “Muslims, Jews, Christians! You also mentioned the changing in the position of the White House regarding the Sahara issue in 2003; but you did not explain why? For me, I guess Morocco was a victim of that dispute between France and USA at the UN! You remember the French position against the US when requested a UN resolution to invade Iraq? Well, to me I see it as, the USA wanted to take revenge against France as supporting Morocco for its rights in the Sahara! So the equation was: you are against me in Iraq, I am against you in Morocco; as simple as that! Following the line of your argument, you also reviewed the politics of the white house towards Morocco under different presidents, and you sort of concluded with the split in congress as one side supports Morocco, and the other supports whoever you want to name! I salute your effort for sharing with us your opinion with respect to our territorial integrity, but again you failed to address the issue as you should! Brother, the Sahara issue has changed completely! It is not about “polisario” or the government of Algeria; this is the past! All Moroccan intellects and politicians need to stop seeing the Sahara issue thru its past! We need to focus on who are these Sahrawi people in the camps in Tindouf? Why the government of Algeria is refusing a census in the camps? What is their tribal origin? What is their number? Who are they, where do they come from? Why they are incarcerated for over three decades? What about the Sahrawi people in this very Sahara? Don’t they have the right? What about other Sahrawi movements, such as Khat Al Chahid, GSI, Kdjijmat etc.! Who represent the Saharawi people? Is it the government of Algeria who spent billions of dollars on this polisario, for what? This is the language we need to speak, because this is the Sahara conflict! This is what defines what you called “International legality”! The international community needs to hear this! We need to be specific, and straight to the point! This is our rights! We don’t need to wait for someone else to think for us, or tell us what to do! My friend we need to wake up! We need to stop being stupid! The world today is much more fragile then what we think it is! Our government needs to be capable of defending our territorial integrity, and the unity of our people. Our military carries a logo that says: “Allah Al Watan, Al Malek”! This is about Al Watan; if they fail to understand what they carry on their shoulder, it will be a disaster! When you and I want to talk about this issue, we need to have a vision that is based on facts and history. We need to be careful about what the potential of our enemies might be! I say this because this is not about the land grabbing competition; this is our territory that has been historically Moroccan! We need to refer to our history when we talk about this issue! You know, the USA or any other political entity in the world will not do your work for you, you need to do it yourself, or else you lose! So far, our political parties, and our intellects have been extremely stupid and stubborn in protecting our territorial integrity! In fact they help internationalize our purely national affaire just like you are doing right here, right now! Our responsibility is to defend the integrity of our country and the unity of our people by writing smart and talking the Wright language. We have to build our relationship with others based on their respect to our integrity, and our stability; because that’s what others do! They build their relationship with others based on what’s in it for them! As you mentioned in your review, the White House changed its political position so many times depending on what the tenant of the White House deems useful for his political agenda! So, what’s good for you is good for me! By the way, for this very reason, I wish from the bottom of my heart that our beloved intellects, government, and our politicians would wake up and stand their ground. They will gain more by being faithful to the country, smart, intelligent, and tough at the same time! There are so many examples of political leaders who doing just that! Thank you |
Write comment
