Auteur/autrice : mahembarec

  • Unilatéralisme : Casus belli

    By Sahara Watch
    The problem with any Moroccan unilateralism is that there’s no incentive for Rabat to implement autonomy unless France and the US are willing to make the dramatic move of recognizing Moroccan sovereignty. That is, from the Moroccan point of view, autonomy is a compromise, a step backwards, and not an inevitability. Indeed, the Moroccan regime sees autonomy as a liability given the growth of Berberism in the Rif and Draa regions. And it is no secret that some parties support autonomy in Western Sahara because they hope it will become a crack in the Makhzen system through which real political reform can be driven.

    So for Morocco to ‘magnanimously’ implement autonomy, there has to be some major reward for such ‘compromise’. Would the Bush administration make such a move and recognize Moroccan sovereignty vis-à-vis an autonomous Western Sahara (I’m sure Sarko would)? Would anyone in the US care if the White House did?

    The major argument against supporting Moroccan unilateralism, for the White House, is that the UN establishment would not be too happy and Polisario would be left with no choice but to go back to war.

    Unilateral autonomy: that there is the real Casus Belli.

    There’s obviously precedent for this, what with the Bush administration’s endorsement of Israeli unilateralism in Gaza and the West Bank wall, which is not a compromise but a solution pre-determined by realpolitik in the 1970s. The same could be said of Western Sahara.

    Well, if you put it that way. But that’s not really the issue: the way autonomy is being shoved down the throat of Polisario, Algeria and the Sahrawi people in general, could very well become a trigger of war, rather than an alternative to it. And I’ve outlined a number of times the potentially disastrous consequences of breaking down the hitherto agreed-upon decolonization framework for the conflict (eg. like the US and Morocco propose, by ramming an ethnically based autonomy through w/o proper procedure while simultaneously tearing down the colonial border status). In many ways, this could be not about autonomy or war, but about two kinds of war. And that is without taking the moral or legal questions into account: from a purely practical perspective, I don’t think this supposedly ‘realist’ approach is very realistic at all, long-term.
    That said, I have no problem with autonomy of some kind as an end result of the conflict, if that is what the parties and, importantly, the people of Western Sahara can agree on. The problem is the way it is being delivered — the US (and Morocco, but who can blame them) is going for a short-sighted quick fix approach, which has a serious risk of really bad blowback later.

    I have the same attitude to independence, by the way. And I wouldn’t mind full integration into Morocco either, under the same procedural conditions, though I think it would be much harder to make that work as a solution.

    Ending the conflict would be a great boost to Moroccan democracy, whichever way it ended. There is no question about that: finally, the Moroccan government could get to work on real issues; set up a foreign policy and cooperation strategy that doesn’t exclusively revolve around tricking foreign dignitaries into visiting El Aaiún; and spending some of the state budget on the 34,500,000 or so citizens who don’t live in the Sahara. Also, the military elite could be chastised, as it loses its Saharan fiefdom. And, as an added bonus, the Moroccan political class could turn its energy to fixing their system of government instead of compulsively ranting about Evil Algeria amongst themselves.

    But no, autonomy per se I don’t think will be beneficial to democracy. Autonomous provinces in third world non-democracies has (correct me if I’m wrong) almost without exception ended up as crony-run, corrupt and hideously costly to the central government. Also, they often turn out considerably less democratic than the central state — run by local strongmen — and an obstacle to its own reform, because of the vested interests they have and attract, and the political weight they exert within the system.

    This I expect will become the case of the so far outlined autonomous Western Sahara, which is essentially set up in the Moroccan proposal & policy to become a subsidized playground of various tribal cliques and and businessmen. But is it better than war? Certainly, if they can make that solution stick.

    That, however, is why I am so skeptical. My concern is that such an autonomy will soon enough revert to being ruled de facto by Rabat, if only because the Khellihenna crowd will have proved to be useless for both Sahrawis and the Rabat government (or worse, a Khellihenna-Abdelaziz combo; imagine that). This is to say that the autonomous province will eventually become neither autonomous nor very nice to live in. Opposition follows, but now tribal & Islamic, instead of nationalist, à la the rest of the Arab world & Sahara.

    Then, if you didn’t get closure for the self-determination issue before starting the autonomy (i.e. by a legit referendum & Polisario’s and Algeria’s honest recognition of loss), this is where you could enter step two of the conflict. Resurgent autonomy-boosted nationalism merges with tribal-Islamic opposition, and rebel memories return, but without the clear-cut decolonization case of before; now it is completely ethnic and tribal, with the implications this has for both Sahrawis, Morocco and, in particular, Mauritania. Plus, you have a couple of ten thousand disillusioned, jobless ex-Polisario stalwarts with military training and more than a few axes to grind, scattered between all of these territories. And this is where some serious shit starts hitting the fan.

    I’m not saying that a return of conflict along these lines is the only way a fudged self determination process could play out, far from it. It could also surprise us and move along so smoothly the question is forgotten in years; but this sort of cockup, or something very similar to it, is certainly a very serious risk — which everybody involved keeps pretending doesn’t exist. But it does. And it should, no, must be seriously debated. So, by all means: debate.

  • We are currently seeking volunteers for reconnaissance survey work in October 2009

    The role of volunteers in the Western Sahara Project

    Volunteers play a vital role in the work of the Western Sahara Project, and make a major contribution to the funding of the Project. Volunteering for a Western Sahara Project field season is a way of experiencing a unique desert environment and culture in a part of the world which is largely closed to outsiders. Volunteering is also an opportunity to learn about the fascinating and little-known archaeology of this remote region and of the Sahara at large. Many of our volunteers have found a trip to Western Sahara to be a life-changing, and enhancing, experience, and a number have participated in multiple seasons of fieldwork.

    Volunteers can participate in both reconnaissance surveys and excavations, although more commonly participate in the former. No experience of archaeology or desert travel is required in order to volunteer for reconnaissance survey work. Excavation work can incorporate both experienced and inexperienced volunteers. See below for more details, for requirements for specific seasons of fieldwork (currently October 2009), and for general information about future field seasons.

    The cost of participating in a field season of reconnaissance survey work is comparable with the cost of many adventure holiday packages, or the cost of participating in a conservation project such as those run by many charitable organisations. For further information on specific seasons, see below or contact Nick Brooks.

    October 2009 Field Season

    Our next field season will run from 10 October – 1 November 2009 (precise dates to be confirmed subject to flights). It may be possible for people who cannot take 3 weeks off to join the team for the final two weeks of the field season only, subject to negotiation with the organisers. Dates are subject to confirmation (due to flight availability) but are unlikely to change by more than a day or two.

    Location, travel and logistics

    Fieldwork will take place in the Northern Sector of the Polisaio-controlled zone (the « Free Zone ») of Western Sahara in the vicinity of the main settlement of Tifariti. Travel to the field will be from London via Algeria. The team will transit through Algiers, taking an internal flight to the southwestern Algerian town of Tindouf. Here the team will be met by representatives of the Polisario (Sahrawi) government. The team will spend one night in the Sahrawi refugee camps in the vicinity of Tindouf, before travelling overland to the Northern Sector of Western Sahara. The journey from Tindouf to Tifariti takes about 8 hours. We will stop for lunch, and possibly camp overnight in the desert, on the way to Tifariiti. Once at Tifariti the team will be based in guest accommodation. However, much of the season will be spent away from Tifariti and its immediate environs, necessitating camping in the open. Tents are not required (although you may wish to bring a small one), but a good (warm) sleeping bag and thermarest or similar are essential. Further advice on what to bring will be be circulated to participants prior to departure.

    Nature of the work

    The October 2009 field season will have two major objectives:

    (1) The identification and sampling of sites that can tell us about past environmental change, and in particular about the nature and timing of transitions between humid and arid conditions. Such sites may include dry lake beds, caves and rockshelters, and areas containing geochemical crusts formed by the evaporation of surface or groundwater. The identification of sites of environmental interest will be achieved through a combination of satellite image analysis and local knowledge.

    (2) The identification and recording of new archaeological sites, with a focus on funerary sites and burial monuments. Volunteers will be engaged principally in the recording of funerary monuments. Full instruction will be given in this aspect of the work, and volunteers will use specially designed recording sheets to record specific information about individual monuments. The information collected will contribute to the Project database, and will enable us to map the geographic distributions of different types on monument, and establish similarities and differences between monuments, both within Western Sahara and between Western Sahara and the wider Saharan region. Coupled with results from excavations, this information can help us to assess when areas were occupied, and by which population groups, as well as providing insights into funerary practices and prehistoric cosmologies.

    What is it like?

    Conditions in the field are very basic, although the food and hospitality are always spoken of very highly by our volunteers. Cold showers are available at Tifariti. The spectacular landscape, astonishing archaeological record, and warmth of the Sahrawi people more than make up for any physical deprivation. For those of you who like to get away from it all, it is worth pointing out that the Free Zone has no paved roads, and almost no permanent settlements (those that exist are little more than hamlets). Traditional nomadic lifestyles are still practiced in the area, and the archaeological record remains virtually unknown to the international research community. Photos of the area and of the field study sites are available here. If you would like to speak to any volunteers from previous seasons (some have participated in multiple seasons and are coming back for more in October) let us know and we can put you in touch. See below for contact details.

    Costs

    The cost of participation in the October 2009 3-week reconnaissance survey is £2395. Costs include flights from London, and all accommodation, food and transport while in the field. All costs go towards the running of the Project, which does not make a profit. Costs for the 2009 field season have been calculated so as to ensure that the season can be entirely funded by the contributions of volunteers. Additional funds will be sought from other sources to pay for subsequent laboratory analysis of archaeological and environmental materials as required.

    Next steps

    If you want to join us in October or would like more information, please contact Nick Brooks (nick.brooks [at] uea.ac.uk).


    Future Field Seasons

    The Project runs at least one field season every year. Reconnaissance survey work tends to take place in the autumn (October or November), and excavation work in the spring (March-April), although this situation may change in the future.

    Where a season combines both excavation and reconnaissance/environemntal work, it is possible to volunteer for either excavation or reconnaissance. While excavation and reconnaissance teams are likely to be in close contact while in the field, for logistical and practical reasons it is not possible to swap from one team to the other once in the field. Excavation work is more physically demanding than reconnaissance work, but represents an excellent opportunity to gain experience of archaeological excavation in a region in which almost no excavations have been conducted, and would suit people embarking on an archaeological career and wishing to expand their digging experience. Reconnaissance work provides an opportunity to gain general archaeological experience, and experience of arid environments and palaeoenvironmental research. Both digging and reconnaissance work offer an opportunity to experience a unique and little-known part of the world seldom visited by outsiders. As indicated above, anyone can volunteer for reconnaissance work. Some excavations seasons may be able to accommodate volunteers with no previous experience.

    Field seasons in 2010

    At present the most likely scenario for 2010 is either a season of excavations in the spring followed by a season of reconnaissance and environmental work in the autumn, or a combined season of excavations, reconnaissance and environmental work in the autumn.

    Excavations in 2010 will focus on the Project’s main study area some 15 km north of Tifariti. The excavation team will stay in guest accommodation at Tifariti and travel daily to the field site. There may be an opportunity to spend some nights in the open at the field site. The excavation team will have one free day per week, during which they can explore the surrounding area, including the locally well-known rock art site of Rekeiz Lemgassem. The work will consist of the excavation of a number of burial monuments. The main objective of these excavations is to acquire materials for dating and geochemical analysis, in order to establish when the monuments were built and to infer information about the diets, mobility and origins of prehistoric populations. These data will be related to environmental data in order to examine how prehistoric people in this area responded to climatic and environmental change, specifically the drying of the Sahara some 5000 years ago. All excavated monuments will be systematically recorded in order to provide a record of the excavations and infer information about funerary practices and prehistoric lifestyles. The excavations will be directed by experienced field archaeologists with extensive excavation experience in Western Sahara and elsewhere.

    Finding out about future field seasons

    If you want to be added to our mailing list for information about future field seasons, or would like to know more about volunteers opportunities and the nature of our work, please contact:

    – Nick Brooks for reconnaissance survey work and general enquiries (nick.brooks [at] uea.ac.uk)

    – Joanne Clarke for excavation work (joanne.clarke [at] uea.ac.uk)

  • We are currently seeking volunteers for reconnaissance survey work in October 2009

    The role of volunteers in the Western Sahara Project

    Volunteers play a vital role in the work of the Western Sahara Project, and make a major contribution to the funding of the Project. Volunteering for a Western Sahara Project field season is a way of experiencing a unique desert environment and culture in a part of the world which is largely closed to outsiders. Volunteering is also an opportunity to learn about the fascinating and little-known archaeology of this remote region and of the Sahara at large. Many of our volunteers have found a trip to Western Sahara to be a life-changing, and enhancing, experience, and a number have participated in multiple seasons of fieldwork.

    Volunteers can participate in both reconnaissance surveys and excavations, although more commonly participate in the former. No experience of archaeology or desert travel is required in order to volunteer for reconnaissance survey work. Excavation work can incorporate both experienced and inexperienced volunteers. See below for more details, for requirements for specific seasons of fieldwork (currently October 2009), and for general information about future field seasons.

    The cost of participating in a field season of reconnaissance survey work is comparable with the cost of many adventure holiday packages, or the cost of participating in a conservation project such as those run by many charitable organisations. For further information on specific seasons, see below or contact Nick Brooks.

    October 2009 Field Season

    Our next field season will run from 10 October – 1 November 2009 (precise dates to be confirmed subject to flights). It may be possible for people who cannot take 3 weeks off to join the team for the final two weeks of the field season only, subject to negotiation with the organisers. Dates are subject to confirmation (due to flight availability) but are unlikely to change by more than a day or two.

    Location, travel and logistics

    Fieldwork will take place in the Northern Sector of the Polisaio-controlled zone (the « Free Zone ») of Western Sahara in the vicinity of the main settlement of Tifariti. Travel to the field will be from London via Algeria. The team will transit through Algiers, taking an internal flight to the southwestern Algerian town of Tindouf. Here the team will be met by representatives of the Polisario (Sahrawi) government. The team will spend one night in the Sahrawi refugee camps in the vicinity of Tindouf, before travelling overland to the Northern Sector of Western Sahara. The journey from Tindouf to Tifariti takes about 8 hours. We will stop for lunch, and possibly camp overnight in the desert, on the way to Tifariiti. Once at Tifariti the team will be based in guest accommodation. However, much of the season will be spent away from Tifariti and its immediate environs, necessitating camping in the open. Tents are not required (although you may wish to bring a small one), but a good (warm) sleeping bag and thermarest or similar are essential. Further advice on what to bring will be be circulated to participants prior to departure.

    Nature of the work

    The October 2009 field season will have two major objectives:

    (1) The identification and sampling of sites that can tell us about past environmental change, and in particular about the nature and timing of transitions between humid and arid conditions. Such sites may include dry lake beds, caves and rockshelters, and areas containing geochemical crusts formed by the evaporation of surface or groundwater. The identification of sites of environmental interest will be achieved through a combination of satellite image analysis and local knowledge.

    (2) The identification and recording of new archaeological sites, with a focus on funerary sites and burial monuments. Volunteers will be engaged principally in the recording of funerary monuments. Full instruction will be given in this aspect of the work, and volunteers will use specially designed recording sheets to record specific information about individual monuments. The information collected will contribute to the Project database, and will enable us to map the geographic distributions of different types on monument, and establish similarities and differences between monuments, both within Western Sahara and between Western Sahara and the wider Saharan region. Coupled with results from excavations, this information can help us to assess when areas were occupied, and by which population groups, as well as providing insights into funerary practices and prehistoric cosmologies.

    What is it like?

    Conditions in the field are very basic, although the food and hospitality are always spoken of very highly by our volunteers. Cold showers are available at Tifariti. The spectacular landscape, astonishing archaeological record, and warmth of the Sahrawi people more than make up for any physical deprivation. For those of you who like to get away from it all, it is worth pointing out that the Free Zone has no paved roads, and almost no permanent settlements (those that exist are little more than hamlets). Traditional nomadic lifestyles are still practiced in the area, and the archaeological record remains virtually unknown to the international research community. Photos of the area and of the field study sites are available here. If you would like to speak to any volunteers from previous seasons (some have participated in multiple seasons and are coming back for more in October) let us know and we can put you in touch. See below for contact details.

    Costs

    The cost of participation in the October 2009 3-week reconnaissance survey is £2395. Costs include flights from London, and all accommodation, food and transport while in the field. All costs go towards the running of the Project, which does not make a profit. Costs for the 2009 field season have been calculated so as to ensure that the season can be entirely funded by the contributions of volunteers. Additional funds will be sought from other sources to pay for subsequent laboratory analysis of archaeological and environmental materials as required.

    Next steps

    If you want to join us in October or would like more information, please contact Nick Brooks (nick.brooks [at] uea.ac.uk).


    Future Field Seasons

    The Project runs at least one field season every year. Reconnaissance survey work tends to take place in the autumn (October or November), and excavation work in the spring (March-April), although this situation may change in the future.

    Where a season combines both excavation and reconnaissance/environemntal work, it is possible to volunteer for either excavation or reconnaissance. While excavation and reconnaissance teams are likely to be in close contact while in the field, for logistical and practical reasons it is not possible to swap from one team to the other once in the field. Excavation work is more physically demanding than reconnaissance work, but represents an excellent opportunity to gain experience of archaeological excavation in a region in which almost no excavations have been conducted, and would suit people embarking on an archaeological career and wishing to expand their digging experience. Reconnaissance work provides an opportunity to gain general archaeological experience, and experience of arid environments and palaeoenvironmental research. Both digging and reconnaissance work offer an opportunity to experience a unique and little-known part of the world seldom visited by outsiders. As indicated above, anyone can volunteer for reconnaissance work. Some excavations seasons may be able to accommodate volunteers with no previous experience.

    Field seasons in 2010

    At present the most likely scenario for 2010 is either a season of excavations in the spring followed by a season of reconnaissance and environmental work in the autumn, or a combined season of excavations, reconnaissance and environmental work in the autumn.

    Excavations in 2010 will focus on the Project’s main study area some 15 km north of Tifariti. The excavation team will stay in guest accommodation at Tifariti and travel daily to the field site. There may be an opportunity to spend some nights in the open at the field site. The excavation team will have one free day per week, during which they can explore the surrounding area, including the locally well-known rock art site of Rekeiz Lemgassem. The work will consist of the excavation of a number of burial monuments. The main objective of these excavations is to acquire materials for dating and geochemical analysis, in order to establish when the monuments were built and to infer information about the diets, mobility and origins of prehistoric populations. These data will be related to environmental data in order to examine how prehistoric people in this area responded to climatic and environmental change, specifically the drying of the Sahara some 5000 years ago. All excavated monuments will be systematically recorded in order to provide a record of the excavations and infer information about funerary practices and prehistoric lifestyles. The excavations will be directed by experienced field archaeologists with extensive excavation experience in Western Sahara and elsewhere.

    Finding out about future field seasons

    If you want to be added to our mailing list for information about future field seasons, or would like to know more about volunteers opportunities and the nature of our work, please contact:

    – Nick Brooks for reconnaissance survey work and general enquiries (nick.brooks [at] uea.ac.uk)

    – Joanne Clarke for excavation work (joanne.clarke [at] uea.ac.uk)

  • A comment by Kal

    A comment by Kal


    Well, to take Israel, you have the fact that the Druze and “Bedouin” communities outrightly joined the Israeli side after 1948. You can, as Saharawi Citizen says, traitors in any movement. Benedict Arnold? The Algerian independence movement had more than one defector and collaborator.

    Arab Israelis are said (by Israelis) to have equal rights to Jewish Israelis; though there are Israelis who challenge that. It really doesn’t matter much if the Sahara is wealthy or poor. The legal status is contested for wholly legitimate reasons. Now to say that Saharawis have equal rights with Moroccans, which as you write are limited in the first place, I think, remains problematic. And if a Saharawi who has defected (and we know that many of these defectors are not Saharawis at all but Mauritanians or related Moors from southern Morocco proper) wants to re-defect back to his original position? Or asks real questions about the status of the so-called “province” he lives in? He gets an answer from a baton. So would Moroccans, but the ultimate fact is that his country is occupied illegally, regardless of how many settlers are there or how well the natives live; the territory is illegally occupied. Sure a number of Saharawis in the occupied territories might better off materially than those round Tindouf, but then again, aren’t we also told that Arab Israelis are better off and have more rights than Arabs in Egypt, Syria, Morocco or Algeria and that black South Africans lived better under apartheid than blacks under majority rule elsewhere in Africa? That line of thinking doesn’t really address the question at hand. If irredentism and occupation are wrong in Israel and Palestine, it is wrong in Morocco. If Israel should set and accept its borders with the Arabs, Morocco should set and accept its borders with its neighbors.

    The real difference between Israel in Morocco in this sense is that one can find Israelis that at least partially empathize with the Palestinians. It is harder to find Moroccans that are willing to buck “consensus” to see things from the other side of the berm.

    Firstly, I will say the comparison is not perfect and that analogy is not especially useful. Nobody is saying there is a one to one parallel. But since the Sahara is treated by Morocco as legally a part of Morocco it is not akin per se to the occupied territories, but rather to Israel proper and the Saharawis there are more akin to Arab Israelis.
    As for defectors: the circumstance in the Sahara is different from that in Israel, yes. It is therefore possible for different kinds of defection. There is a logical position one can take for unification on multiple lines. In the case of Israel, it is ridiculous for an Arab to pick up the Likud line (though there are Arab members of the party).
    As for the « true Saharawi » issue; that’s not quite it. These are people with Mauritanian passports, Moroccan passports and who are not from the territory. It’s not « I would be Saharawi but I’d ike to be Moroccan »; it’s more « I’m actually a Moroccan/Mauritanian but I’m claiming to be Saharawi ». There is certainly a fluidity of political identity, but that really doesn’t justify the Moroccan claim; « the identity is fluid, therefore one view of that identity should imposed upon the population » is what that amounts to. The Moroccan presence is not the result of identity or historical claims. It’s because Morocco has always wanted the resources in the Sahara, be they phosphates or iron ore.
    I also think that the comparison is not simply about the status of Saharawis; there is a similarity in world view and conduct between Israel and Morocco. Both countries have an anxiety about their territorial integrity as a result of aggressive political ideology and the acquisition of territory by force, all followed up by denying a people their fundamental right to determine their own status. Oh, and the exploitation of its resources by outsiders. The similarity in conduct is imperfect, as you might mention; Israel was, after all, attacked by its neighbors at least once. Morocco has been a rather committed aggressor in every one of its modern conflicts.

    « If Laayoune is Gaza then the fact that poverty there is lower than in Rabat is perhaps a troubling fact for those who are in a position to compare Gaza to Tel Aviv »
    I wouldn’t call Laayoune Gaza. But both are occupied territories. It is irrelevant as to whether Moroccans feed Saharawis yummy taguines or not. What is important is that this is a piece of territory taken by force and filled up with Moroccan colonists. It more like one of the old Arab towns in northern Israel or the Sinai was, perhaps even the Golan (though admittedly it isn’t a part of another country). What you mention tells us that the Moroccans have worked rather hard to absorb the Sahara into Morocco proper, before any legal process could take place. Its all part of the claim, Morocco wants to take over the territory as easily as possible. The Israelis have messier projects to do this, being that the people they’re trying to displace are rather different from them. The two circumstance are, as you say, very different. (I’ll say again, I don’t like analogies).
    But in any case, Morocco hasn’t got official apartheid legislation, it only has settlers, an expansionist ideology, illegally held territory, semi-defined borders with its neighbors and a lot of yummy food. I can’t wait to see MoVI dressed up in those wonderful Saharawi robes. I might then go off and join the irredentist movement in Morocco; the Aures are Saharan, right?

    This comment has been imported from Maghreb Arab Review

  • A comment by Kal

    A comment by Kal


    Well, to take Israel, you have the fact that the Druze and “Bedouin” communities outrightly joined the Israeli side after 1948. You can, as Saharawi Citizen says, traitors in any movement. Benedict Arnold? The Algerian independence movement had more than one defector and collaborator.

    Arab Israelis are said (by Israelis) to have equal rights to Jewish Israelis; though there are Israelis who challenge that. It really doesn’t matter much if the Sahara is wealthy or poor. The legal status is contested for wholly legitimate reasons. Now to say that Saharawis have equal rights with Moroccans, which as you write are limited in the first place, I think, remains problematic. And if a Saharawi who has defected (and we know that many of these defectors are not Saharawis at all but Mauritanians or related Moors from southern Morocco proper) wants to re-defect back to his original position? Or asks real questions about the status of the so-called “province” he lives in? He gets an answer from a baton. So would Moroccans, but the ultimate fact is that his country is occupied illegally, regardless of how many settlers are there or how well the natives live; the territory is illegally occupied. Sure a number of Saharawis in the occupied territories might better off materially than those round Tindouf, but then again, aren’t we also told that Arab Israelis are better off and have more rights than Arabs in Egypt, Syria, Morocco or Algeria and that black South Africans lived better under apartheid than blacks under majority rule elsewhere in Africa? That line of thinking doesn’t really address the question at hand. If irredentism and occupation are wrong in Israel and Palestine, it is wrong in Morocco. If Israel should set and accept its borders with the Arabs, Morocco should set and accept its borders with its neighbors.

    The real difference between Israel in Morocco in this sense is that one can find Israelis that at least partially empathize with the Palestinians. It is harder to find Moroccans that are willing to buck “consensus” to see things from the other side of the berm.

    Firstly, I will say the comparison is not perfect and that analogy is not especially useful. Nobody is saying there is a one to one parallel. But since the Sahara is treated by Morocco as legally a part of Morocco it is not akin per se to the occupied territories, but rather to Israel proper and the Saharawis there are more akin to Arab Israelis.
    As for defectors: the circumstance in the Sahara is different from that in Israel, yes. It is therefore possible for different kinds of defection. There is a logical position one can take for unification on multiple lines. In the case of Israel, it is ridiculous for an Arab to pick up the Likud line (though there are Arab members of the party).
    As for the « true Saharawi » issue; that’s not quite it. These are people with Mauritanian passports, Moroccan passports and who are not from the territory. It’s not « I would be Saharawi but I’d ike to be Moroccan »; it’s more « I’m actually a Moroccan/Mauritanian but I’m claiming to be Saharawi ». There is certainly a fluidity of political identity, but that really doesn’t justify the Moroccan claim; « the identity is fluid, therefore one view of that identity should imposed upon the population » is what that amounts to. The Moroccan presence is not the result of identity or historical claims. It’s because Morocco has always wanted the resources in the Sahara, be they phosphates or iron ore.
    I also think that the comparison is not simply about the status of Saharawis; there is a similarity in world view and conduct between Israel and Morocco. Both countries have an anxiety about their territorial integrity as a result of aggressive political ideology and the acquisition of territory by force, all followed up by denying a people their fundamental right to determine their own status. Oh, and the exploitation of its resources by outsiders. The similarity in conduct is imperfect, as you might mention; Israel was, after all, attacked by its neighbors at least once. Morocco has been a rather committed aggressor in every one of its modern conflicts.

    « If Laayoune is Gaza then the fact that poverty there is lower than in Rabat is perhaps a troubling fact for those who are in a position to compare Gaza to Tel Aviv »
    I wouldn’t call Laayoune Gaza. But both are occupied territories. It is irrelevant as to whether Moroccans feed Saharawis yummy taguines or not. What is important is that this is a piece of territory taken by force and filled up with Moroccan colonists. It more like one of the old Arab towns in northern Israel or the Sinai was, perhaps even the Golan (though admittedly it isn’t a part of another country). What you mention tells us that the Moroccans have worked rather hard to absorb the Sahara into Morocco proper, before any legal process could take place. Its all part of the claim, Morocco wants to take over the territory as easily as possible. The Israelis have messier projects to do this, being that the people they’re trying to displace are rather different from them. The two circumstance are, as you say, very different. (I’ll say again, I don’t like analogies).
    But in any case, Morocco hasn’t got official apartheid legislation, it only has settlers, an expansionist ideology, illegally held territory, semi-defined borders with its neighbors and a lot of yummy food. I can’t wait to see MoVI dressed up in those wonderful Saharawi robes. I might then go off and join the irredentist movement in Morocco; the Aures are Saharan, right?

    This comment has been imported from Maghreb Arab Review

  • Mesures de confiance, vous avez dit…?

    La confiance est une premise indispensable pour tout processus de paix entre deux belligérants, spécialement s’il s’agit d’un conflit de longue durée où les souffrances et les racines de la haine se sont incrustées dans les profondeurs.

    A l’origine, les mesures de confiance ont été envisagées au début du processus de paix pour jeter les bases de la tolérance en vue du retour des réfugiés au Sahara Occidental pour l’organisation d’un référendum d’autodétermination. Le Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies et les membres du Conseil de Sécurité ont à plusieurs reprises invité les parties à remettre en œuvre des mesures de confiance afin d’alléger les souffrances des réfugiés sahraouis séparés de leur famille depuis plus de 34 ans.

    Parmi ces mesures, les visites familiales, très limitées, et les appels téléphoniques gratuits offerts aux réfugiés. Mais la mesure la plus importante, l’utilisation de moyens transport terrestres n’a pas pu se réaliser à cause du mur de défense de 2800 km qui encercle l’ensemble du territoire et le refus des autorités marocaines à ouvrir des brèches dans ce mur pour permettre la libre circulation de citoyens entre les camps de réfugiés et les villes occupés par le Maroc.
    Jusqu’à maintenant, les négociations ont échoué. Les sujets de tension, pouvant déboucher sur le retour aux armes, ne manquent pas. Le premier, est la violation flagrante et continue des droits humains, ces droits qui doivent être considérés comme un pilier essentiel pour tout rétablissement de confiance dans les esprits d’une population traumatisée par des longues années de guerre, de répression et de souffrances.

    En attendant une solution définitive au conflit, les mesures de confiance doivent être renforcées. Le manque de transparence du gouvernement marocain a empêché l’élimination des freins et obstacles qui gênent l’avancée dans l’application des mesures qui visent vraiment à améliorer la situation de la population. Parmi ces mesures, le respect des droits de l’homme dans les territoires occupés.

    Quelle confiance peut-on faire à quelqu’un qui s’acharne quotidiennement contre les militants associatifs?

    Dans les évolutions en cours, les préoccupations immédiates du S.G. de l’ONU tiennent à la réduction des risques de menaces militaires et à l’amélioration de la situation de la population sahraouie. Mais, dans la réalisation de ces objectifs, Ban Ki-mmon se montre profondément attentiste et donne le sentiment d’une réelle impuissance face à l’arrogance marocaine et la complicité de la France colonialiste dont les ingérences paralysent sa diplomatie.

    Comment peut-on expliquer le silence du Secrétaire Général et du Conseil de Sécurité des NNUU sur les violations quotidiennes des droits humains au Sahara Occidental?

    Quelle confiance peut-on faire à un pays qui entoure le territoire sahraui de barbelés et de mines interdites par la communauté internationale?

    Où sont les gestes de bonne volonté qui encouragent à poursuivre les négociations dans une ambiance sereine et sincère?

    Jusqu’ici, l’attitude marocaine peut être qualifiée comme visant plutôt à semer la méfiance et la discorde dans le cadre de la politique du fait accompli.

    Il est temps que Ban Ki-moon rappelle le Maroc qu’il doit honorer ses engagements et se plier à la volonté de la communauté internationale. La patience des sahraouis n’a fait que trop durer, mais elle a des limites. A bon entendeur, salut!

  • Mesures de confiance, vous avez dit…?

    La confiance est une premise indispensable pour tout processus de paix entre deux belligérants, spécialement s’il s’agit d’un conflit de longue durée où les souffrances et les racines de la haine se sont incrustées dans les profondeurs.

    A l’origine, les mesures de confiance ont été envisagées au début du processus de paix pour jeter les bases de la tolérance en vue du retour des réfugiés au Sahara Occidental pour l’organisation d’un référendum d’autodétermination. Le Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies et les membres du Conseil de Sécurité ont à plusieurs reprises invité les parties à remettre en œuvre des mesures de confiance afin d’alléger les souffrances des réfugiés sahraouis séparés de leur famille depuis plus de 34 ans.

    Parmi ces mesures, les visites familiales, très limitées, et les appels téléphoniques gratuits offerts aux réfugiés. Mais la mesure la plus importante, l’utilisation de moyens transport terrestres n’a pas pu se réaliser à cause du mur de défense de 2800 km qui encercle l’ensemble du territoire et le refus des autorités marocaines à ouvrir des brèches dans ce mur pour permettre la libre circulation de citoyens entre les camps de réfugiés et les villes occupés par le Maroc.
    Jusqu’à maintenant, les négociations ont échoué. Les sujets de tension, pouvant déboucher sur le retour aux armes, ne manquent pas. Le premier, est la violation flagrante et continue des droits humains, ces droits qui doivent être considérés comme un pilier essentiel pour tout rétablissement de confiance dans les esprits d’une population traumatisée par des longues années de guerre, de répression et de souffrances.

    En attendant une solution définitive au conflit, les mesures de confiance doivent être renforcées. Le manque de transparence du gouvernement marocain a empêché l’élimination des freins et obstacles qui gênent l’avancée dans l’application des mesures qui visent vraiment à améliorer la situation de la population. Parmi ces mesures, le respect des droits de l’homme dans les territoires occupés.

    Quelle confiance peut-on faire à quelqu’un qui s’acharne quotidiennement contre les militants associatifs?

    Dans les évolutions en cours, les préoccupations immédiates du S.G. de l’ONU tiennent à la réduction des risques de menaces militaires et à l’amélioration de la situation de la population sahraouie. Mais, dans la réalisation de ces objectifs, Ban Ki-mmon se montre profondément attentiste et donne le sentiment d’une réelle impuissance face à l’arrogance marocaine et la complicité de la France colonialiste dont les ingérences paralysent sa diplomatie.

    Comment peut-on expliquer le silence du Secrétaire Général et du Conseil de Sécurité des NNUU sur les violations quotidiennes des droits humains au Sahara Occidental?

    Quelle confiance peut-on faire à un pays qui entoure le territoire sahraui de barbelés et de mines interdites par la communauté internationale?

    Où sont les gestes de bonne volonté qui encouragent à poursuivre les négociations dans une ambiance sereine et sincère?

    Jusqu’ici, l’attitude marocaine peut être qualifiée comme visant plutôt à semer la méfiance et la discorde dans le cadre de la politique du fait accompli.

    Il est temps que Ban Ki-moon rappelle le Maroc qu’il doit honorer ses engagements et se plier à la volonté de la communauté internationale. La patience des sahraouis n’a fait que trop durer, mais elle a des limites. A bon entendeur, salut!

  • El culebrón de las alianzas de Zapatero


    Séneca dijo que « quien vive según las leyes de la Naturaleza (según lo real existente) no se hará pobre; pero quien deja regir su vida por sueňos de grandeza, no se hará nunca rico ». La Naturaleza se conforma con lo poco; el sueño imposible, de su lado, exige siempre lo desmedido e irrealizable.

    Zapatero vuelve a dar muestras del paupérrimo estado al que ha reducido Espaňa, convertido ya en una farsa al servicio de sus propios delirios de grandeza. Ignora, consciente o inconscientemente, que no todos los medios son lícitos para alcanzar unos fines que no discutimos pudieran de otra forma ser dignos de alabanza.

    Además, el gobierno de Zapatero cree que nada de lo que haga afecta más allá de las fronteras nacionales. Intenta vender que las relaciones con el Presidente Obama son fructíferas, que pertenecemos a tal o cual « G-XY », se venden alianzas vacías de civilizaciones como se vendía en su momento la alianza con George W. Bush.

    Si se define el éxito como la capacidad de lograr los objetivos que uno se ha propuesto (no los que los demás nos asignen) y dejamos a un lado los gustos personales, queda claro que González y Aznar tuvieron bastante éxito: se marcaron unas metas y, en gran medida, las lograron. Zapatero también tiene una serie de objetivos, aunque, hasta la fecha, no ha logrado completarlos de forma satisfactoria, por lo que debiera revisarlos y, eventualmente, cambiarlos o reorientarlos. La contradicción en el seno de la política zapaterista no parece concertarse con ningún programa de los partidos en el Congreso de los Diputados.

    El gran éxito, la gran hazaña, de Rodríguez Zapatero: ha conseguido que un país que hace poco más de seis años se había posicionado como una de las naciones más influyentes y una de las economías más prósperas del mundo desarrollado, ahora sea la cola de Europa para todo, en lo económico y en lo político, y curiosamente siga los mismos pasos, en este caso de sumisión y no de colaboración, con el régiment marroquí y el Elíseo.

    Las últimas giras del ministro Moratinos y la actitud en general del Gobierno Espaňol hacia regímenes totalitarios como el marroqui ponen de manifiesto que Espaňa sigue en esa misma política de no alineamiento impulsada por Zapatero hace cinco años, y que sitúa Espaňa al mismo nivel que las naciones más cutres y casposas del escenario internacional. Este Gobierno ha conducido Espaňa a la peor de las pesadillas: la de un país tercermundista que ha dejado de ser el sur de Europa para volver a ser el norte de África. España, gracias al Gobierno de José Luís Rodriguez Zapatero, ha pasado de ser la última de Europa, a la primera del norte de Africa.

    El Proceso de Barcelona no podía funcionar porque era prematuro, un proyecto sin alma y la presencia de un Marruecos siempre tan belicoso en la familia mediterránea, no está hecho pra hacer reinar la armonía en la región. El expediente del Sáhara occidental envenena, desde hace 34 aňos, las relaciones intermagrebíes e impide toda reapertura de la frontera entre Argelia y Marruecos y la concretización de la Union del Magreb Arabe, otro proyecto que, a causa del Sáhara, sigue siendo una ficción. Sin embargo, Zapatero sigue en sus empeňos de minimizar este conflicto para ganar el afecto de ese monarca feudal llamado Mohamed VI. Sobra decir que toda integración regional pasa forzosamente por la resolución de este conflicto cuya responsabilidad cae, en primer grado, sobre Espaňa, potencia administradora según el derecho internacional.

    Otro gran soňador, Nicolas Sarkozy, quizo robarle la iniciativa a Espaňa creando la Union por el Mediterráneo (UPM) que acaba de apagar su primera vela, el aniversario de un bébé recién nacido muerto. Una iniciativa para aparecer, en eso se une a Zapatero, como un innovador, un fabricante de una nueva civilización, un visionario, un hombre del que se acordará la humanidad.

    Los ingredientes del fracaso del proceso de Barcelona y la UPM seguirán eternizándose. Si, inicialmente, se trataba de hacer del Mediterráneo una cuenca de paz y estabilidad, de crear una zona de libre cambio en 2010 y reforzar las relaciones humanas y sociales transmediterráneas, nada de todo esto ha visto la luz, salvo la libre circulación de los capitales europeos en el Sur y al mismo tiempo, Europa se erigió como fortaleza herméticamente cerrada a la circulación de los habitantes del Sur.

    La caja de Pandora todavía guarda nuevas sorpresas. Fiel a si mismo, Zapatero se lanza ahora, cuerpo y alma, en una nueva aventura sin haber medido las consecuencias y sobre todo despreciando las reglas más elementales de la diplomacia. Podía haberse contentado con el programa de los « 5+5 » que lleva diez aňos funcionando y reúne alrededor de la misma mesa, por un lado, Portugal, Espaňa, Francia, Italia y Malta y Mauritania, Marruecos, Argelia, Túnez y Libia, del otro lado.

    En un nuevo episodio de diarrea mental, asistimos con perplejidad a una nueva payasada del gobierno zapaterista sin que se le cayese la cara de vergüenza. Esta vez se trata de un chisme llamado « Iniciativa del Atlántico Sur », un programa que, a iniciativa de Espaňa y Portugal, pretende impulsar el diálogo y la cooperación internacional. Según ellos, otros paises de Latinoamérica (Brasil Uruguay y Argentina) y Africa, junto a Francia, apoyan el plan. Una vez más, Zapatero corre detrás del Casanova francés. Salta a la vista que la genial idea viene de Paris. El resto del curro lo hacen los sectarios.

    Por supuesto, Marruecos esta encantado con la idea de buscar nuevas alianzas y poder actúar en un ámbito en el que no se encuentra Argelia, ese país que es la causa de todas sus pesadillas. Y Espaňa se ha erigido como la principal defensora de la necesidad de reforzar las relaciones euro-marroquíes y en Enero le toca el turno de presidir la UE. Es decir, sálvese quien pueda.

    La megalomanía de Zapatero ha hecho que no sepa más que agitar el viento sin tener en cuenta los contextos políticos e históricos. Los distintos ejercicios de rendición (Gibraltar, Marruecos, Niza, fondos europeos, crisis de las viñetas o Alianza de Civilizaciones) han confirmado que España es una nación débil que se pliega a las demandas ajenas a la primera de cambio. Y sobre todo al chantaje francés y marroqui.

    La defensa de la democracia liberal y denuncia de las dictaduras sólo se aplicó a Cuba, no a Marruecos, ni a Guinea Ecuatorial, ni a Libia.

    Frente a los delirios del jefe de gobierno espaňol, la vacuna se llama humildad. Y cuando uno es incapaz de ser humilde sólo existe una solución: que otro le aplique esa necesaria humildad, a través de una urgente cura.Y esa cura se llama elecciones. Pero si el sucesor es otro del mismo rango, como el PP, seguiremos nadando en las mismas aguas sucias de siempre.

  • El culebrón de las alianzas de Zapatero


    Séneca dijo que « quien vive según las leyes de la Naturaleza (según lo real existente) no se hará pobre; pero quien deja regir su vida por sueňos de grandeza, no se hará nunca rico ». La Naturaleza se conforma con lo poco; el sueño imposible, de su lado, exige siempre lo desmedido e irrealizable.

    Zapatero vuelve a dar muestras del paupérrimo estado al que ha reducido Espaňa, convertido ya en una farsa al servicio de sus propios delirios de grandeza. Ignora, consciente o inconscientemente, que no todos los medios son lícitos para alcanzar unos fines que no discutimos pudieran de otra forma ser dignos de alabanza.

    Además, el gobierno de Zapatero cree que nada de lo que haga afecta más allá de las fronteras nacionales. Intenta vender que las relaciones con el Presidente Obama son fructíferas, que pertenecemos a tal o cual « G-XY », se venden alianzas vacías de civilizaciones como se vendía en su momento la alianza con George W. Bush.

    Si se define el éxito como la capacidad de lograr los objetivos que uno se ha propuesto (no los que los demás nos asignen) y dejamos a un lado los gustos personales, queda claro que González y Aznar tuvieron bastante éxito: se marcaron unas metas y, en gran medida, las lograron. Zapatero también tiene una serie de objetivos, aunque, hasta la fecha, no ha logrado completarlos de forma satisfactoria, por lo que debiera revisarlos y, eventualmente, cambiarlos o reorientarlos. La contradicción en el seno de la política zapaterista no parece concertarse con ningún programa de los partidos en el Congreso de los Diputados.

    El gran éxito, la gran hazaña, de Rodríguez Zapatero: ha conseguido que un país que hace poco más de seis años se había posicionado como una de las naciones más influyentes y una de las economías más prósperas del mundo desarrollado, ahora sea la cola de Europa para todo, en lo económico y en lo político, y curiosamente siga los mismos pasos, en este caso de sumisión y no de colaboración, con el régiment marroquí y el Elíseo.

    Las últimas giras del ministro Moratinos y la actitud en general del Gobierno Espaňol hacia regímenes totalitarios como el marroqui ponen de manifiesto que Espaňa sigue en esa misma política de no alineamiento impulsada por Zapatero hace cinco años, y que sitúa Espaňa al mismo nivel que las naciones más cutres y casposas del escenario internacional. Este Gobierno ha conducido Espaňa a la peor de las pesadillas: la de un país tercermundista que ha dejado de ser el sur de Europa para volver a ser el norte de África. España, gracias al Gobierno de José Luís Rodriguez Zapatero, ha pasado de ser la última de Europa, a la primera del norte de Africa.

    El Proceso de Barcelona no podía funcionar porque era prematuro, un proyecto sin alma y la presencia de un Marruecos siempre tan belicoso en la familia mediterránea, no está hecho pra hacer reinar la armonía en la región. El expediente del Sáhara occidental envenena, desde hace 34 aňos, las relaciones intermagrebíes e impide toda reapertura de la frontera entre Argelia y Marruecos y la concretización de la Union del Magreb Arabe, otro proyecto que, a causa del Sáhara, sigue siendo una ficción. Sin embargo, Zapatero sigue en sus empeňos de minimizar este conflicto para ganar el afecto de ese monarca feudal llamado Mohamed VI. Sobra decir que toda integración regional pasa forzosamente por la resolución de este conflicto cuya responsabilidad cae, en primer grado, sobre Espaňa, potencia administradora según el derecho internacional.

    Otro gran soňador, Nicolas Sarkozy, quizo robarle la iniciativa a Espaňa creando la Union por el Mediterráneo (UPM) que acaba de apagar su primera vela, el aniversario de un bébé recién nacido muerto. Una iniciativa para aparecer, en eso se une a Zapatero, como un innovador, un fabricante de una nueva civilización, un visionario, un hombre del que se acordará la humanidad.

    Los ingredientes del fracaso del proceso de Barcelona y la UPM seguirán eternizándose. Si, inicialmente, se trataba de hacer del Mediterráneo una cuenca de paz y estabilidad, de crear una zona de libre cambio en 2010 y reforzar las relaciones humanas y sociales transmediterráneas, nada de todo esto ha visto la luz, salvo la libre circulación de los capitales europeos en el Sur y al mismo tiempo, Europa se erigió como fortaleza herméticamente cerrada a la circulación de los habitantes del Sur.

    La caja de Pandora todavía guarda nuevas sorpresas. Fiel a si mismo, Zapatero se lanza ahora, cuerpo y alma, en una nueva aventura sin haber medido las consecuencias y sobre todo despreciando las reglas más elementales de la diplomacia. Podía haberse contentado con el programa de los « 5+5 » que lleva diez aňos funcionando y reúne alrededor de la misma mesa, por un lado, Portugal, Espaňa, Francia, Italia y Malta y Mauritania, Marruecos, Argelia, Túnez y Libia, del otro lado.

    En un nuevo episodio de diarrea mental, asistimos con perplejidad a una nueva payasada del gobierno zapaterista sin que se le cayese la cara de vergüenza. Esta vez se trata de un chisme llamado « Iniciativa del Atlántico Sur », un programa que, a iniciativa de Espaňa y Portugal, pretende impulsar el diálogo y la cooperación internacional. Según ellos, otros paises de Latinoamérica (Brasil Uruguay y Argentina) y Africa, junto a Francia, apoyan el plan. Una vez más, Zapatero corre detrás del Casanova francés. Salta a la vista que la genial idea viene de Paris. El resto del curro lo hacen los sectarios.

    Por supuesto, Marruecos esta encantado con la idea de buscar nuevas alianzas y poder actúar en un ámbito en el que no se encuentra Argelia, ese país que es la causa de todas sus pesadillas. Y Espaňa se ha erigido como la principal defensora de la necesidad de reforzar las relaciones euro-marroquíes y en Enero le toca el turno de presidir la UE. Es decir, sálvese quien pueda.

    La megalomanía de Zapatero ha hecho que no sepa más que agitar el viento sin tener en cuenta los contextos políticos e históricos. Los distintos ejercicios de rendición (Gibraltar, Marruecos, Niza, fondos europeos, crisis de las viñetas o Alianza de Civilizaciones) han confirmado que España es una nación débil que se pliega a las demandas ajenas a la primera de cambio. Y sobre todo al chantaje francés y marroqui.

    La defensa de la democracia liberal y denuncia de las dictaduras sólo se aplicó a Cuba, no a Marruecos, ni a Guinea Ecuatorial, ni a Libia.

    Frente a los delirios del jefe de gobierno espaňol, la vacuna se llama humildad. Y cuando uno es incapaz de ser humilde sólo existe una solución: que otro le aplique esa necesaria humildad, a través de una urgente cura.Y esa cura se llama elecciones. Pero si el sucesor es otro del mismo rango, como el PP, seguiremos nadando en las mismas aguas sucias de siempre.

  • Belliraj : Un mouton sacrifié pour l’ouverture des frontières


    A l’instar de son ami George Bush Junior, Mohamed VI a promulgué la loi relative aux interrogatoires et aux procès des terroristes présumés qui suscite l’hostilité des mouvements de défense des droits de l’homme. Sur fond de terrorisme, soupe de tonnerre dans le paysage politique, le ministère de l’intérieur, bénéficie d’une carte blanche. Celui-ci a condamné, le 28 juillet, sans surprise, le citoyen belgo-marocain Abdelkader Belliraj à la détention à perpétuité par le tribunal antiterroriste de Salé, tandis que les six codétenus politiques ont été lourdement condamnés à des peines allant de 20 à 25 ans de prison. A l’énnoncé du verdict, certains avocats ont eu les larmes aux yeux. Tandis que les familles, visiblement sous le choc, applaudissaient les juges en criant ironiquement : « Bravo la justice ». « C’est une véritable catastrophe », commentait pour sa part le bâtonnier Abderrahim Jamai à la sortie du tribunal. « La justice a cédé aux pressions du ministre de l’intérieur et c’est proprement scandaleux », s’emportait Khalid Soufiani, lui aususi avocat de la défense. La situation a été brillament décrite, d’une façon ironique, par l’excellent blogueur Ibn Kafka, dans son article intitulé « X-Files, Affaire Belliraj, quelques conseils à Chakib Benmoussa » :


    « Si vous estimez que le Maroc est le plubopaysdumonde – traversé par une révolution silencieuse – que seuls des nihilistes, enfants gâtés, bobos, islamo-gauchistes, séparatistes, chiites, Moulay Hicham, Abdelkader Belliraj, Bob Ménard, Ali Lmrabet, Gilles Perrault et Roger Lemerre oseraient critiquer, vous êtes exemptés de lire la suite. Pour ceux qui estiment que dans un pays classé 120e dans le Democracy Index de The Economist (juste avant le Rwanda et juste après l’Egypte, et largué par l’Irak et Haïti), placé juste après le Montenegro et avant le Mozambique dans le Global Integrity Report axé sur la corruption, 122e dans le classement Worldwide Press Freedom Index de RSF (juste après l’Algérie et juste avant Oman), 127e dans le classement 2008 du PNUD sur l’Indice de développement humain (juste après le Botswana et juste avant Sao Tomé e Principe), 74e sur 104 dans le classement Legatus de la prospérité mondiale et 82e dans le classement Environmental Performance Index (juste après le Népal, et juste avant la Roumanie), tout n’est pas rose, et que la responsabilité en incombe à l’autorité constitutionnelle suprême du pays, vous faites partie des 9% de Marocains à la solde de Tindouf et de Téhéran. Vous vous rappelez sans doute de l’affaire Belliraj, où vendeurs ambulants, leaders de partis politiques et MRE marginaux et délinquants auraient amassé des millions d’euros à des fins terroristes sans jamais commettre d’attentats – les meurtres mis au compte d’Abdelkader Belliraj, le MRE marocain – et informateur de la Sûreté de l’Etat belge – qui serait le cerveau de ce réseau remontent à près de vingt ans. Le réseau a une composition qui ressemble au rêve mouillé d’un éditorialiste du Matin du Sahara: du PSU au PJD en passant par deux mouvement islamistes mineurs, Al Manar et le Hezbollah. Ne manquent à l’appel que Bob Ménard, Ali Lmrabet, Moulay Hicham, le Polisario, l’AMDH et Boubker Jamaï pour que la dream-team soit au complet. »

    Ce présumé chef terroriste a nié catégoriquement la totalité des chefs d’inculpation retenus contre lui. Les accusés étaient poursuivis pour atteinte à la sûreté intérieure de l’Etat, association de malfaiteurs en vue de préparer et commettre des actes terroristes, meurtre avec préméditation, tentative d’homicide volontaire avec préméditation, vol qualifié et tentative de vol qualifié et détention illégale d’armes et d’explosifs. Des accusations que Abdelkader Belliraj a catégoriquement niées au même titre que d’avoir contribué à faire passer des armes pour le Front islamique du salut (FIS dissous). Parmi les accusés figurent des chefs de partis islamistes modérés dissouts par les autorités marocaines. Certains entretenaient des liens avec des associations de défense des droits de l’homme. Il avait été arrêté le 18 février 2008 au Maroc avec 33 membres de son réseau. D’après la presse marocaine de l’époque, ils étaient sous surveillance depuis plusieurs années mais le réseau aurait été démantelé car ils prévoyaient une série d’attentats. Quelques mois plus tard, Abdelkader Belliraj aurait avoué avoir commis les crimes dont il est accusé, mais il s’est ensuite rétracté car ses aveux auraient été arrachés sous la torture. Au cours du procès, il a nié tous les faits qui lui sont reprochés. Le 1er juin dernier, le procureur avait requis la peine capitale contre lui. La justice belge a exprimé ses réserves sur cette « condamnation pour des faits autres que ceux jugés au Maroc qui ont mené à sa réclusion à perpétuité. La justice belge a demandé une copie conforme de cette condamnation à la justice marocaine ». Il est évident que les autorités belges voient dans cette affaire un montage dont ils ignorent les causes et dont la victime n’est ni plus ni moins que l’un des leurs meilleurs informateurs et dont les informations ont permis, dans le passé, de déjouer une opération terroriste dans un pays européen dont le nom a été soigneusement gardé en secret pour des raisons de sécurité. L’ironie est que, avec ce procès ultra médiatisé, ils n’ont pas convaincu les autorités algériennes de l’efficacité de la police marocaine et la nécessité d’ouvrir les frontières et ainsi offrir leurs services pour empêcher le trafic d’armes destinés aux criminels de l’AQIM opérants en Algérie.

    Le malheureux Beliraj a été le mouton sacrifié dans le but de charmer les autorités algériennes.
    Encore un échec des tentatives marocaines d’imposer le status quo au Sahara Occidental en faisant semblant de vouloir normaliser les relations avec l’Algérie. Mais celle-ci a encore fait preuve de sa politique qui est basée sur la légalité internationale et toute normalisation ne pourra se faire au détriment des souffrances du peuple sahraoui.