Letter
I have a
few remarks regarding Jacob Mundy’s article
(“Western Sahara Between Autonomy and Intifada,” MER
Online, March 16, 2007).
First, it
would have been interesting to inform your readers of
the role of the Algerian military in the conflict over Western
Sahara and the control they have over the POLISARIO Front.
Second, your
readers should have been informed of the recent conflicts
between different factions within POLISARIO, and that
many factional leaders are now returning to Morocco. Others
would if they had the chance. The internal conflict is
more serious than the differences over “tactics” that
Mundy cited.
Third, the
recent contacts between some POLISARIO leaders and the Royal
Advisory Council on Saharan Affairs should have been better
explained. The Council is not some figurehead
body. It is seriously engaged in making a positive impact on
the camp of the “independentistas.” Many are
convinced of the seriousness of the Moroccan offer of
autonomy, and others are still considering the plan. Only a few
have rejected it, under pressure from the Algerian regime.
Fourth,
Mundy might have explained something about the plan
of autonomy that Morocco is proposing, instead of dismissing
it in one phrase. This plan is the last chance for POLISARIO,
as POLISARIO well knows, and as some of its leaders have
accepted. So can Mundy tell us why the Algerian regime
is dismissing the plan and pressuring POLISARIO to reject it?
Fifth, Mundy
forgot to mention that there is unanimity in Morocco --
among political parties, NGOs and the like -- on the Moroccanity
of the Sahara. There is no conflict here between a “despotic” regime
and POLISARIO. The conflict is between the majority
of the people and a minority that wants separation. That is
the belief in Morocco, and Mundy should have acknowledged this.
All human rights violations in the Saharan region are
reported by the Moroccan press and condemned by human rights
groups such as the Moroccan Human Rights Association.
Worst of
all, I nearly choked when I read Mundy actually encouraging
POLISARIO to choose armed conflict as “a more honorable
of the two choices,” where the second choice is
accepting autonomy (not honorable, according to Mundy). Middle
East Report should not have accepted this inciting
statement for publication. The truth is that POLISARIO has a
choice between ruling the Sahara with considerable autonomy
or staying under the thumb of Algeria. There are no other
solutions at the moment, as the superpowers on the Security
Council understand. War is not a solution, I would say
to Mundy. If he is so upset that the case of Morocco is considered to
be reasonable, let him go fight against it.
Said
Essoulami
Casablanca, Morocco
Jacob
Mundy replies:
Anyone
familiar with the conflict knows that POLISARIO and Algeria share
common interests, coordinate policies and synchronize strategies.
In fact, Algerian influence saved Morocco from war in early
2001, when POLISARIO mobilized to break the ceasefire. But none
of that translates into Algeria controlling POLISARIO.
If the
Algerian military controls POLISARIO, then Essoulami should
be confused as to why, in March, his own government accused
POLISARIO of working with the Salafist Group for Preaching
and Combat, which is linked to al-Qaeda and fights the
Algerian state. The Moroccan government also repeatedly
attacks POLISARIO for having relations with Cuba. POLISARIO
must be the only organization in the world accused of being
radically leftist and radically Islamist at the same time.
If Essoulami’s
second, third and fourth assertions are correct, we must wonder
why Morocco is so afraid of a referendum on independence. If
the “conflict is between the majority of the
people and a minority which wants separation,” then Morocco
has nothing to fear from a democratic vote on the final status
of Western Sahara. As the East Timorese used to say, “Those
who are afraid of the referendum are afraid of the truth.”
Indeed,
the Moroccan government has seriously undermined the fifth assertion,
that “there is unanimity in Morocco…on the Moroccanity
of the Sahara.” If all Moroccans feel that Western Sahara
is a part of their country, then why did Morocco reject Baker’s
2003 proposal to hold a referendum including Moroccan settlers
alongside Western Saharans?
Lastly,
Essoulami makes a basic philosophical slip when he claims
that I am encouraging POLISARIO to resume armed action against
Morocco. As a social scientist, I was offering causal explanation,
not moral justification. In other words, I was not saying what
POLISARIO ought to do, but rather suggesting that the dismal
state of the Western Sahara peace process might lead POLISARIO
to pursue armed efforts. Attempting to understand the causes
of violence does not morally justify real or possible violent
effects. Only when we are able to make this distinction can
we address the conditions of conflict in our world.
