We welcome your unreasonable comments

Magharebia, a news site sponsored by the United States Africa Command, recently ran a story about the postponement of a planned march on Tifariti by the Moroccan “NGO” the Association Sahara Marocaine (”Sahara tension mounts as Tifariti march postponed“). The Magharebia story made the common mistake of confusing the buffer zone, which extends for 5 km either side of the berm that partitions Western Sahara, with the Polisario-controlled areas east and south of the Berm. This reflects the usual Moroccan rhetoric, which presents the Polisario areas as an official buffer zone rather than areas of Western Sahara that Morocco has failed to occupy, in which Morocco has no presence, and which are firmly controlled by a government with a competing claim to the territory. The confusion about the nature and extent of the buffer zone is common among journalists, so I thought I’d give Magharebia the benefit of the doubt, and point out their mistake. The site says that it welcomes comments, so I duly sent off a clarification, with links to MINRUSO maps showing the buffer zone, the berm and the Moroccan and Polisario-controlled areas. I pointed out that the (often overlooked) existence of the Polisario controlled areas has important implications for the viability of the Moroccan autonomy plan as a “solution” to the conflict.

As of today my comment has not been published [Note: see below for update]. However, this one has:

“truth: west sahara is moroccans and was moroccans and remains moroccans, we hope that tifariti and surroundings in as soon as possible conquered and free become, there is no other solution. political agression of algerian generals against morocco is total unacceptable, we hope that they think well after because they have two keys in hands them can choose between peace and war, we hope that they choose for peace, because war means a large calamity in north africa and surroundings. peace!”

So has another opposing comment, so full of cut and paste anti-American bile that it appears to be from a wannabe Jihadi sitting in his bedroom watching Osama videos, rather than a nationalist Sahrawi. Or perhaps it’s a put up job (maybe in the interest of balance?. Maybe it’s real, and an early indication that this festering conflict and the West’s support for Morocco is pushing some Sahrawi into the familiar territory of angry fundamentalism.

Anyway, it seems that you’re allowed to comment on this US military sponsored website if you’re a belligerent, ranting, hate-filled fundamentalist of whatever persuasion, but not if you’re someone with a valid and reasonably worded comment that takes issue with a misleading factual inaccuracy in one of Magharebia’s articles. I know I can be quite verbose, but I did stick within the word limit. I wonder if there is a political agenda here (surely not!). Morocco certainly doesn’t want anyone to know that there is a significant chunk of Western Sahara outside of its control. Now that the US has come out firmly in favour of Morocco’s partition - sorry, autonomy - plan, perhaps US military-sponsored news sites have been instructed to keep quiet about this matter too.

UPDATE: After I published the above entry my blog saw much more activity than usual (about 8 times the normal number of hits, with plenty of time still to go before the day is out). I’ve just checked the article on the Magharebia website and my comment has now been published. The comment was submitted 5 days ago, and has been published some time after comments submitted 4 and 2 days ago. A number of other comments submitted 4 days ago have also been published today (18 March 2008). Anyway, whether these comments have been “released” in response to this post, or whether the delay was just due to a glitch or distracted moderator, it’s good to see them there.

Of all the 8 comments currently visible on the site, one is mine, one is a request for impartiality in the administration of the site, one is pro-Sahrawi, and the remaining 5 are pro-Moroccan. Interestingly, one of the pro-Moroccan comments accuses the Algerian authorities of “playing the game of the Zionists”. So Israel has been dragged into this by both sides in these comments (see also the one pro-Sahrawi comment, which is rather belligerent, but it is hardly alone in this respect). Neither of these (pro- nor anti-Moroccan) comments acknowledges the fact that, as part of a mutual back-scratching agreement between Morocco and Israel, there is an understanding that Israel will help to promote Moroccan interests. The author of the pro-Moroccan post who attacks Algeria for being like “the Zionists” might want to rethink his comments and take a more positive position regarding this new Moroccan ally.

More people please….

Just when I thought this blog had become a vehicle for discussing nothing but Western Sahara, some old friends have cropped up to stimulate a post on another favourite topic.

The stimulation in question was delivered by the BBC Radio 4 show PM, which has been running a series of reports and discussions about world population. I tuned in to find myself listening to a debate between diplomat turned professional environmental worrier Crispin Tickell, and one Austin Williams. Tickell was arguing that the world is overpopulated, and Williams was taking issue with this assertion. The first thing that I heard was Williams (an as yet unidentified voice) stating that “Effectively we are above nature and that’s what makes us human.”

Now the idea that we are separate from nature, and that this separation is a defining characteristic of our humanity, has a long history in Western thought. But when you hear someone espousing this philosophy in the UK media in the early 21st century, it’s a good bet that they’re an old Revolutionary Communist and current member of the LM Group, a body of individuals and organisations with their roots in the old Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), united by a common hatred of environmentalism, nature, and the precautionary principle.

Needless to say I wasn’t disappointed. Williams was identified by the presenter of PM as the Director of the Future Cities Project, a significant player in the LM Group’s long game of persuading the world to sign up to its ideology of rapacious consumption and permanent technological revolution. This organisation had jumped into my mind when Williams said that he was against sustainable development (the FCP “fights for development instead of sustainable development”, according to its website - Williams is also the author of a polemic against “sustainability” titled “The Enemies of Progress”). He described population control as an inevitable and “poisonous” extension of environmentalism, and decried the fact that many parts of the world “still have that tragic relationship with nature”. He contended that an increase in global population to 9 billion would be a good thing.

Now I don’t buy the ideas of carrying capacity that the likes of Crispin Tickell apparently believe in. The number of people a region, ecosystem or planet can support depends very much on how those people manage their environment. The greater the population, and hence the greater the need for resources, the more careful and parsimonious that population will have to be in its resource use. Perhaps we can support 9 billion people, but I have my doubts that this will be achievable along the lines favoured by Williams, which involve everyone on Earth emulating the unsustainable development practices of the rich industrial and post-industrial world, practices which are based on the availability of a large, poorly paid workforce and lax labour and environmental regulations in the developing world that the likes of Williams invariably claim to champion. A couple of recent papers (1, 2) make a convincing case that the costs of environmental degradation associated with economic growth are borne disproportionately by the world’s poor - the relationship of many people in the developing world with nature is becoming more tragic as a result of consumption, pollution and climate change driven by processes that have disproportionately benefited wealthy nations and wealthy minorities within poor countries. We should certainly strive to improve the lot of the poor, oppressed and marginalised, but we are likely to have to change our ways in order to do so. Williams and his chums believe no such changes are required.

The worship of nature to the exclusion of considerations of human welfare is neither sensible nor desirable, but the worship of humanity to the extent that all considerations of environmental sustainability are ignored, and issues of concerns about population and resource use simply brushed aside, is simply self-defeating and idiotic. By forgetting that our societies are embedded in and ultimately dependent on complex, dynamic natural systems which we influence through our actions, and which in turn affect us through the agency of environmental variability and change, we make ourselves more vulnerable to environmental hazards. For example, the expansion of agriculture into the southern margins of the Sahara desert in the unusually wet 1950s and 1960s set up the Sahel region of Africa for the catastrophic famine of the 1972-73. The movement of agriculture into historically marginal and unproductive areas resulted in the collapse of food production when rainfall returned to “normal” and then declined dramatically in the early 1970s. By neglecting to consider issues of environmental viability and sustainability, development planners in the Sahel, influenced by ideologies of nationalism, progress, growth, and faith in technology, massively increased the vulnerability of food production to environmental variation.

Across the world other examples of such “maladaptation” abound, rooted in a development ideology that fetishizes economic growth and has at its core the idea that we are separate from and above nature. From the clearing of protective mangroves for shrimp farms in southeast Asia to the development of settlements on flood plains all over the globe, societies are making themselves more vulnerable to environmental hazards by ignoring the agency inherent in the environment as they grow their populations and economies. As our climate changes as a result of the emission of more and more greenhouse gases in an energy hungry and growth obsessed world, we are going to have to pay more, not less attention to issues of environmental sustainability and the role of the environment in constraining our development options. This will be essential for the survival of communities and societies all over the world. But the likes of Williams and the LM crowd are trying their damnedest to convince us otherwise. Their solution to the problem of a dynamic environment is to say that we should simply control it. Well, good luck guys - first you have to understand it, and even then there’s no guarantee that you can get it to do what you want. This is simply a declaration of blind faith in technology, driven by a refusal to accept the reality of humanity as embedded in, and part of, nature. It is not a practical solution, nor a sensible suggestion.

Williams and his fellow travellers in the LM Group are taking the dogma of human separation from and elevation above nature to new and dangerous heights in what appears to be a concerted campaign aimed at spreading their ideology of rapacious consumption and environmental destruction throughout society at all levels. They may claim to be nothing more than a bunch of people with a common background in the old RCP who just happen to hold certain views in common, but they seem to be mouthing a strict party line. The rhetoric from the various individuals and organisations that make up the LM family is remarkably consistent, and in this respect the extreme libertarian LM group of today echoes the RCP that gave birth to it. Williams’ insistence on our elevation above nature mirrors Keenan Malik’s writings on “human exceptionalism”. His insistence on an increase in the human population echoes LM spiritual leader Frank Furedi’s writings on the same topic in the LM online organ Spiked (an article with the subtitle “Can there really be too many of us?” appears in a series amusingly and accurately titled “Frank Furedi’s Really Bad Ideas”). Claire Fox, director of the poorly named Institute of Ideas, made a similar assertion in a radio interview in 2006 when she claimed on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme that “You can’t be progressive if you accept the ecological limits to growth”. Daniel Ben Ami decries what he refers to as “the dismal quackery of eco-economics“, arguing firmly that the environment should be left out of development considerations. I’ve ranted plenty about Martin Durkin in previous posts, so no more on him here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The LM Group are not the only people pushing the ideology of nature-hatred. But they are arguably the most organised when it comes to disseminating this ideology. If you hear anyone in the UK media asserting that we are separate from or above nature, that anyone advocating action on climate change change or other environmental issues is anti-progressive, or that environmentalists are anti-human, the chances are that you a listening to an old trot from the LM stable bent on pushing their latest nihilistic ideology of permanent revolution. If you want to confirm their affiliation, it’s easy.

(1) Turner, R. K. and Fisher, B. 2008. To the rich man the spoils. Nature 451, 1067-1069.

(2) Srinavasan, U. T. Carey, S. P., Hallstein, E., Higgins, P. A. T., Kerr, A. C., Koteen, L. E., Smith, A. B., Watson, R., Harte, J. and Norgaard, R. B. 2008. The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 1768-177.

An unfortunate choice of words

The Moroccan news (and propaganda) agency Maghreb Arabe Presse has run a story claiming that nearly 100 Sahrawi have fled the Polisario-run camps in Algeria in order “to enjoy dignified, united and stable life in Morocco” [sic]. This gives MAP an opportunity to slag off the Polisario and plug Morocco’s “Autonomy Plan”, under which the international community and a pro-Moroccan body of Sahrawi dignitaries would endorse the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara in exchange for a measure of political devolution within the occupied areas of the territory (how big a measure is debatable, and the fate of the Polisario-controlled “Free Zone” of Western Sahara is conveniently ignored).

The article states that several of the alleged Sahrawi migrants participated in a meeting of Sahrawi dissidents held in Gjijimat near Tifariti in December 2007 “to voice adherence to Morocco’s autonomy proposal”. Apparently this was a sort of fringe meeting held at the same time as what MAP refers to as “the so-called 12th Congress of Polisario leadership in the buffer zone[1] of Tifariti” (”so-called” is a favourite turn of phrase of Morocan propagandists when it comes to all things Polisario-related, but at least they’ve resisted the temptation to put quotation marks around the word “Polisario” every time they type it).

The Polisario congress received wide (withing the context of Saharan affairs) coverage - I watched a lot of it on Al Jazeera while sitting in a Polisario base in the far south of the Free Zone (read into that what you will). A search for “Gjijimat” throws up a lot of pro-Moroccan websites reporting on the alleged dissidents’ meeting, but little else, so I can’t report on whether such a meeting took place or on anything that may have resulted from it (although this matter is alluded to on the excellent and relatively dispassionate Western Sahara Info blog, which suggests that, as with all Sahara coverage emanating from MAP, reports about the Gjijimat meeting should be treated with caution, if not buried in a large barrel of salt). If anyone can find Gjijimat on a map, please let me know.

Whether the meeting at Gjijimat was real or a fiction dreamed up by MAP, it was reportedly held under a sign reading “Autonomy as a Final Solution to Achieve Reconciliation and Dignified Return to the Homeland”.

Autonomy as a “Final Solution”? I always suspected as much.

By the way, today’s top MAP story (just beating the story about the alleged flight of the dissident Sahrawi) is titled “King is in Good Health, [according to] Ministry of Royal Household”. Apparently Mohammed VI went to Paris to “take some rest” and “not to receive any health care of undergo whatever surgery” [sic]. Always good to have one’s newspaper lead with an important story about the good health of one’s leader. It helps the democratisation process proceed smoothly, knowing that your absolute ruler isn’t about to cark it.

(For younger readers - not you Will - it might be worth explaining that the “Final Solution” was the name the Nazis gave to their programme of genocide against the Jews and other “undesirable” groups. I’ll resist the base urge to draw further comparisons).

 

[1] What the Moroccans call the “buffer zone” (or sometimes the “demilitarized zone”) is actually the zone controlled by the Polisario independence movement, a zone which Morocco has not occupied and in which Morocco has no presence (see earlier posts on the partition of Western Sahara). The Polisario and the exiled Sahrawi refer to this zone as the “Free Zone”, and many Sahrawi living in exile in the camps in Algeria (and also in Mauritania) often enter the Free Zone, for example to graze camels when rains result in good pasture, or to attend political events organised by the Polisario. The Moroccan establishment prefers to play down the fact that there is a sizable part of Western Sahara that it doesn’t control, and which is run by a government that it refused to acknowledge. There is an actual buffer zone, or restricted area, extending for some distance either side of the “Berm“, the Moroccan-built wall (really a series of defensive earthworks exploiting the natural topography) that partitions Western Sahara. The restricted area, the limited extent of which leaves the Polisario plenty of space in the unoccupied areas east and south of the Berm, can be seen on this map showing the deployment of UN observers/peacekeepers from MINURSO.

Well, it’s a start

(Photo courtesy of MINURSO: click for larger image)

MINURSO have responded (fairly promptly, it has to be said) to the complaints and associated publicity about the defacing of archaeological sites by their peacekeeping personal. The results can be seen in the above photo, which shows a sign erected at the heavily damaged (by MINURSO and other graffiti) rock painting site of Rekeiz Lemgassem, in the Northern Sector of the Free Zone of Western Sahara, near Tifariti. Apparently another sign is being erected “at Aguanit” - presumably actually at Lajuad, where the worst examples of graffiti were noted by the Polisario in summer 2007, and then by a research team working with the Western Sahara Project (headed by yours truly) in winter 2007.

It remains to be seen whether these signs will have the desired effect. They will at least remove the excuse of ignorance or general thoughtlessness and, in combination with the negative publicity that previous acts of vandalism have attracted, should make people (particularly MINURSO personnel) think twice before advertising their personal details in six-foot high spray-painted letters on rock faces of archaeological and cultural significance.

The signs are only a start. More needs to be done in the region to foster respect for the cultural heritage of this fascinating and little-known (to the outside world at least) part of the Sahara. Codes of conduct need to be developed, disseminated , understood and acted on, and the discipline threatened in the signs needs to be enforced if future offences are committed by UN peacekeepers.

The issue of the existing graffiti also needs to be addressed. Assessments need to be carried out to see if it can be safely removed, without damaging the rock art underneath (and this may not be possible). If this is feasible, the work will be time consuming and costly. The issues of who pays for, and who carries out any restoration is yet to be resolved. Initial suggestions were that UNESCO might handle, and fund, the restoration. However, UNESCO is being remarkably quiet. The reason might be found in this article in the Moroccan journal l’Opionion, which states that UNESCO has emphasised to Morocco that it does not recognise the Polisario’s authority in the Free Zone, and that UNESCO has promised to seek permission from Morocco before undertaking any restoration work in the Free Zone - for example at Lajuad, where it’s assistance is most needed.

So, UNESCO has apparently promised to seek permission from Morocco to work in an area outside of Moroccan control, in which Morocco has no presence, and which is governed by a political authority completely independent of Morocco. If this is true, UNESCO is colluding with an occupying power in an attempt by the latter to influence activity in an area it covets but does not control, effectively extending the reach of its occupation. Given that the official UN position on the Western Sahara conflict is one of studied neutrality, any such collusion by a UN body with Morocco would be unfortunate. Of course this may be the usual Moroccan propaganda, and may not bear any relation to reality. Morocco has certainly tried its best to take ownership of this issue, as it can’t bear the fact that a story about Western Sahara that focuses on the areas outside of its control has had so much international coverage. It is extremely likely (almost certain in fact) that Morocco has been lobbying UNESCO behind the scenes in order to prevent it operating in the Polisario-controlled areas (1). What is unknown at present is how UNESCO has responded to this inevitable pressure. However, it is worth noting the following, taken from the UNESCO website:

“Morocco maintains a close relationship with UNESCO…… the UNESCO Office Rabat is a cluster office representing UNESCO in Algeria, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia…. Morocco has eight sites inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List….”

It may well be that UNESCO’s “close relationship” with Morocco means that UNESCO will be reluctant to upset the Moroccan authorities for the sake of preserving archaeological sites in a disputed territory in which it has no existing interests.

I hope to have more news on the UNESCO front soon - I’ve emailed them asking if they could clarify the situation and explain their position. Watch this space.

(1) Morocco tries its best to prevent any foreign activity in the Polisario controlled zone (or “Free Zone”) in order to maintain the fiction that this is actually a demilitarized “buffer zone”, and not an independent region within Western Sahara that Morocco has not managed to acquire, run by a government (the Polisario) with which Morocco is competing for sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Bad company

This story broke while I was away, so is old news here in the UK. However, I couldn’t resist a quick post to highlight that the Derek Conway who proposed a deliberately deceptive Early Day Motion in the UK Parliament in favour of Morocco’s autonomy plan is the same Derek Conway that now faces fraud investigations after being sacked by his party for using public funds to “employ” family members. Conway apparently paid his two sons £77,000 of UK taxpayers’ money over three years for “work” that they appear not have undertaken. It is said that a man can be known by the company he keeps. When it comes to Conway and his buddies in Rabat, this dictum appears to work both ways.

I don’t know if Conway’s relationship with the Moroccan government extends to financial remuneration - one wonders what motivated him to propose the EDM in favour of normalising Morocco’s occupation, if not some sort of financial reward. Perhaps he could have paid his sons in Dirhams and saved himself a lot of bother. He wouldn’t be the first foreign political figure to have been bought by the Moroccan state. After publishing a glowing analysis of the king’s fine new clothes (i.e. the Moroccan autonomy plan for Western Sahara), by ex US ambassador to Rabat Frederick Vreeland, the New York Times felt obliged to publish an Editor’s Note pointing out that Vreeland was chairman of a company that had contracts with the Moroccan government. I’m sure there will be many more such unmaskings as Morocco steps up its propaganda campaign with the help of its western stooges.

Between a spray-painted rock and a hard place

It’s difficult to talk about the archaeology of Western Sahara without politics rearing its head sooner or later. For me this usually takes the form of having to explain where Western Sahara is, and that it is a distinct entity that takes the form of a disputed, non-self governing territory, rather than simply a vaguely defined area somewhere in northwest Africa. People usually think I mean I’m working somewhere in Mauritania, Algeria or (eek) Morocco. Once I’ve explained the geography the conversation inevitably turns to the conflict and the partition of the territory between the Moroccan occupied areas and the Polisario-controlled “Free Zone”.

Now I don’t keep my sympathies for the Sahrawi independence cause secret. And I challenge anyone to spend time in the Free Zone with the displaced and politically marginalised Sahrawi without developing some sympathy for their aspirations to an independent state. But politics is politics, and science is science, and we must work hard to keep them as separate as possible in order that the former does not contaminate the latter. In fact this should be pretty easy when the science is dealing with environmental and social changes thousands of years ago, and the politics deals with a contemporary conflict. There is no mileage in using the archaeology of millennia past to say anything about the current political situation, or who has a right to be where.

Nonetheless, the management of archaeological sites must be carried out in existing political contexts, and politics does impinge on the activities of researchers and those concerned with the preservation of cultural heritage. It now appears that the politics of the Western Sahara conflict may present a diplomatic obstacle to the rehabilitation and preservation of archaeological sites damaged by personnel from the UN observer force in Western Sahara (known by its acronym MINURSO), as I will elaborate below.

The vandalism of archaeological sites in Western Sahara clearly warrants some action, in the form of measures to protect sites from future damage, and the rehabilitation of sites that have already been damaged where this is possible. All actors in the region should be cooperating to ensure that the cultural heritage is preserved. MINURSO has a duty to care for it, and Morocco and the Polisario both claim it. There really shouldn’t be too much to argue about (apart perhaps from who pays, which always generates some disagreement).

MINURSO have been very positive about taking action against the perpetrators, cooperating with the rehabilitation of the sites if this turns out to be feasible, and doing their best to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen in the future. Whether action is effective remains to be seen, but the important thing is that the MINURSO leadership is taking the issue very seriously, and seems to be responding constructively to the approach that those of us working in the region have been taking. This is one of constructive engagement coupled with continuing pressure, the idea being to create a climate in which the vandalism of rock art sites is seen as unacceptable by those who might be tempted to perpetrate it, while offering cooperaton to MINURSO in order to help them take sensible actions to protect the archaeology. Julian Harston, the civilian head of MINURSO and the UN Secretary General’s special representative in the region, has pledged to take additional actions to rehabilitate and protect the sites, and has apologised for the damage already done.

So far, so good, you might think. But not everyone approves of MINURSO’s apologetic stance. The Association Sahara Marocain (ASM), a pro-Moroccan, anti-Polisario group based in Casablanca which promotes Morocco’s self-declared “rights” to Western Sahara, has taken great exception to the fact that Mr Harston apologised to some Polisario representatives for the actions of MINURSO staff, after the Polisario representatives had taken up the issue of MINURSO graffiti over prehistoric rock art with him. In fact, ASM has demanded that Mr Harston apologise for the apology. AFP describes ASM’s tantrum as part of a wider “diplomatic incident, and reports that:

“ASM chief Reda Daoujni warned that if an apology was not offered to his group, it would call for a rally outside the Minurso offices in Western Saharaand in Rabat to protest Harston’s “blatant pro-separatist stance.”"

ASM claims to be supporting Morocco’s “territorial integrity”, but does not seem to be bothered about vandalism to the important archaeological sites which would, if it had its way, represent an important element of Morocco’s cultural heritage. Instead, the organisation is concerned only with using cultural heritage as a political football and, to mix my metaphors, a stick to beat MINURSO with when it behaves in a way that isn’t convenient for Morocco. I guess this tells us something about ASM and its priorities.

MINURSO haven’t commented on this latest twist to the story, but they do seem to have identified the complaint from ASM as a potential problem. Any measures to protect archaeological sites will require some kind of coordination with the authorities on the ground, and in the areas housing the damaged sites the authority in question is the Polisario. Anything that prevents MINURSO from cooperating with the Polisario on the issue of protection for archaeological sites is likely to have a detrimental effect on efforts to protect the cultural heritage - any such efforts will need to have the support of all the relevant local “stakeholders”.

Having taken MINURSO to task over the actions of some of its personnel, I feel that I should stick up for them, at least on this issue. The MINURSO leadership is at least trying to right the wrongs committed by some of the UN personnel for which it is responsible, and is taking a lot of flack over this issue at present (albeit not without good reason). Julian Harston and his colleagues seem to be genuinely appalled by the actions of some of the MINURSO observer force, and I for one believe that they are serious about making amends and establishing measures to prevent future vandalism. It would be a real pity if their apparently genuine desire to take meaningful action to restore and protect vulnerable archaeological sites was scuppered by the politicking of the pro-occupation lobby.

So what lies behind ASM’s complaint? For one, they (and by inference, the Morocan authorities) interpret the MINURSO apology to the Polisario as some sort of recognition of Polisario’s legitimacy, and this makes them mad. Never mind that Morocco has no presence in the areas of Western Sahara in which the damage has been recorded, or the fact that these areas are firmly under the control of the Polisario. Never mind the fact that the Polisario are the political representatives of the Sahrawi who inhabit and use these areas, and who endow the damaged sites with historical, cultural and even magical significance. Given this context, it would seem churlish and antagonisitic of Mr Harston not to apologise to representatives of the Polisario when they raised the issue of MINURSO vandalism with him, personally, during the talks at Manhasset. If he is sorry about the actions of MINURSO personnel, why should his apology exclude the authorities in the region in which these actions were carried out? Of course at the bottom of all this lies the fact that Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara is not officially recognised by any government (despite the pro-occupation stance of countries such as France and the US), while the Polisario is recognised as the legitimate government of Western Sahara by around 50 countries (the number changes as countries alternately cave into Moroccan pressure or decide to oppose what they see as Moroccan colonialism). No wonder Morocco is so sensitive and desperate to keep the spotlight away from the reality of an unresolved partition.

ASM’s complaint has deeper roots though. One of the results of the coverage (e.g. 1, 2) of the vandalism is that people are getting to hear about Western Sahara. Crucially, this is a story about Western Sahara that doesn’t mention Morocco, giving the lie to Morocco’s claims to have control or sovereignty over the entire territory. People might realise that this story is rooted in events that occurred in the Free Zone, and come to realise that, rather than being under Moroccan control, Western Sahara is actually partitioned between a Moroccan occupied zone and a Polisario-controlled zone. The reality of partition makes Morocco’s “Autonomy Plan” look like a less durable solution to the Western Sahara conflict, given that the plan does not address the status of the Polisario-controlled or Free Zone, or the status of the 160,000 thousand Sahrawi refugees displaced by Morocco’s occupation and now living in camps in the Algerian desert. Any coverage of events in the Free Zone reveals the inconvenient truth that Morocco’s occupation is not simply a done deal waiting for international endorsement. Such coverage exposes as a fantasy Morocco’s claims of sovereignty, as well as its claims that its occupation of Western Sahara is a stabilising influence in this part of the Sahara. Unresolved partitions of disputed territories and the existence of large numbers of refugees in neighbouring countries is not, as far as my reading of history indicates, conducive to political stability.

Morocco has been quick to try and assert its “ownership” of this story, with the Moroccan director of national heritage condemning the actions of MINURSO personnel in “the demilitarised zone” (i.e. the Polisario controlled zone, in which Morocco has no presence and over which it has no influence). More worryingly, according to accounts heard by this blogger from reliable sources, it appears that Morocco is exerting behind-the scenes pressure on UNESCO to seek Moroccan permission before getting involved in any efforts to clean up existing damage or to prevent future damage to archaeological sites (UNESCO have been approached by Spanish researchers hoping to engage them in the preservation of cultural heritage in Western Sahara). If it is not careful, UNESO could end up apparently endorsing Morocco’s occupation, if it does indeed seek “permission” from Morocco to work in the areas in which damage to archaeological sites has been recorded. This would cause another diplomatic incident, with UNESCO coming under fire for seeking Moroccan permission to work in an area that is not part of Morocco, in which Morocco has no presence, and which is governed by non-Moroccan political authority (the Polisario) which is recognised as the legitimate government of the territory in question by dozens of countries. Given the potential for diplomatic upset, the most likely outcome is that UNESCO will be scared off, and its considerable expertise in rehabilitating and protecting archaeological sites will not be available to those seeking to protect Western Sahara’s unique cultural heritage. To put it simply, Morocco is seeking to prevent the protection of cultural heritage which it claims, and the world will be a poorer place as a result.

Caught out by Moroccan propaganda

More on the MINURSO vandalism story to follow soon. In the meantime, here is an interesting article from afrol News, in which the organisation apologies for publishing a story based on Moroccan propaganda. The original story, about the talks between the Polisario and Morocco in Manhasset, linked the Polisario with terrorism. The subsequent apology states that this error was due to the original piece having been written by “an inexperienced journalist using sources planted by the Moroccan government.” The editor of afrol is clearly rather embarrassed by the incident. He goes on to say that

“Reporting on the Western Sahara conflict is a delicate issue that requires much knowledge of the region and its history and the Moroccan side’s increased spread of false news…“

Hopefully other journalists covering the conflict in Western Sahara will heed these wise words.

UN Personnel Vandalise Archaeological Sites

In 1991, the United Nations sent a force to Western Sahara to monitor the ceasefire between the occupying Moroccan forces and the Polisario independence movement. The Force, known by its French acronym MINURSO, was also tasked with facilitating a referendum on self-determination within the territory - in fact this was its principal purpose. Some 16 years on, the referendum has failed to materialise, and MINURSO is widely viewed by the indigenous Sahrawi, and by some commentators, as leaning towards Morocco. On a positive note, the ceasefire has been maintained without any serious violations, and MINURSO recently has been arranging family visits for Sahrawi separated from their relatives by the effective partition of Western Sahara.

So, MINURSO has overseen a period of relative peace and stability (or helped to maintain the status quo as Morocco consolidates its occupation, depending on your opinion), and has (belatedly) helped Sahrawi exiles in the refugee camps in Algeria maintain contact with family members on the other side of the Moroccan Berm that cuts divides the territory into two zones. However, it has singularly failed in its main task, which is to organise a referendum on self-determination. Perhaps MINURSO cannot be blamed entirely for the continuing stalemate, given the wrangling over voter eligibility and lack of will of the international community to resolve the conflict in Western Sahara in an equitable fashion, if at all. What is clear is that MINURSO is increasingly irrelevant when it comes to determining the future of Western Sahara. It is the view of at least some Sahrawi that MINURSO no longer has any business being in Western Sahara at all.

A recent visit (Nov-Dec 2007) to Western Sahara by this blogger revealed a more unsavoury legacy of MINURSO’s presence in Western Sahara - the deliberate vandalism of archaeological sites. The most dramatic example of this is at Lajuad in the Southern Sector of the Polisario-controlled zone, where MINURSO recently installed some communications hardware on the inaccessible (except by helicopter) summit of a smooth granite hill. It appears that the MINURSO personnel responsible for the installation amused themselves by spray-painting their names on the wall of a rockshelter that is also an important archaeological site (see photos). Although the paintings and engravings in this shelter are somewhat faint, it is difficult not to notice that the wall defaced by the MINURSO personnel houses ancient paintings and engravings, as does the floor of the shelter. Note the engraved and painted wavy lines in the second photograph below, under graffiti from what appear to be Egyptian and Russion MINURSO personnel (see this Flickr album for more photos of the defacement of the Lajuad rockshelter). Perhaps the visiting UN staff were encouraged by the apparently earlier Arabic graffiti - they have certainly left a much greater impression at this site.

This isn’t the first example of the deliberate vandalism of an archaeological site by MINURSO personnel. Similar defacement of decorated rockshelters by UN staff can be seen at the more accessible site of Rekeiz in the Northern Sector of the Polisario zone. Here MINURSO staff again have seen fit to write their names over ancient rock art.

It is a tragedy that UN personnel tasked with resolving one of the world’s longest running military and political conflicts are engaging in the willful destruction of important archaeological sites that have much to teach us about the prehistory of a part of the world that is virtually unknown to the international research community. It is also a tragedy for the cultural heritage of Western Sahara, and is indicative of a contempt for the Sahrawi people on whose land these crimes have been committed. The Polisario, who control the region in which this vandalism has occurred, have apparently complained to MINURSO about these actions, but as of late November 2007 had received no formal response.

It is clear that the destruction and defacement of archaeological sites is unacceptable. The only way for MINURSO to redeem itself in this matter, and by extension the reputation of the United Nations in this region, is to pay for the professional restoration of the sites that its staff have willfully vandalised. MINURSO must also make clear to all its staff that such actions will not be tolerated in the future. Any UN staff found vandalising archaeological sites should be disciplined, and preferably sent home. The funds for restoring damage sites might come from the relevant UN agency (in this case the Department of Peacekeeping Operations), or perhaps from the nations contributing to the MINURSO mission whose military personnel have taken part in these wanton acts of destruction. The guilty parties have, after all, been good enough to leave details of their home countries, their own identities, and the dates on which they committed their misdemeanours.

There is a further irony here, in that the personnel under the jurisdiction of one UN department are busy destroying archaeological sites as another UN agency (UNESCO) is about to embark on developing an inventory of rock art sites in Western Sahara with the aim of recording and preserving the territory’s cultural heritage. As long as UN staff on the ground in Western Sahara delight in defacing rock art, perhaps it is best not to advertise its location.

UK Parliament moves towards normalisation of Moroccan occupation

A Conservative MP in the UK parliament is proposing an Early Day Motion (EDM) in support of Morocco’s Autonomy Plan for Western Sahara (see end of post for the EDM). In essence this means endorsing Morocco’s partial occupation of Western Sahara, a move that is more likely to destabilise the Maghreb than it is to bring peace and security to the region. If you are in the UK and are worried about this development, you might want to write to your MP. Most MPs will know little or nothing about the Western Sahara conflict, and many will believe that by supporting this “solution” they are doing something positive and sensible. They are wrong. Below is the text of a letter I have sent to my MP, Charles Clarke. Please feel free to modify this text and send it to your MP, or to write your own letter. You can find out who your MP is and write to them using the following website: http://www.writetothem.com. You can find out whether or not your MP has signed this motion here. Don’t let your MP be turned into a Moroccan lackey!

—-

Dear Charles Clarke

It has come to my attention that an EDM (see below) is being proposed in support of Morocco’s “Autonomy Plan” for Western Sahara, by Conservative MP Derek Conway. This is a worrying development, as the Moroccan plan precludes any referendum on full independence for Western Sahara, which it invaded in 1975 and which it has partially occupied ever since. The United Nations and the vast majority of governments have always maintained that a solution to the conflict in Western Sahara should be based on the principle of self determination. Morocco and its supporters argue that the Autonomy Plan provides for self determination within a greater Morocco, but the Polisario independence movement and the majority of Sahrawi argue that self determination must allow for full independence. Morocco has presented its plan as a way forward in solving the territorial dispute, whereas it is in fact a means of obtaining endorsement of its invasion of Western Sahara, and normalisation of its occupation. The Polisario is prepared to allow a referendum which gives the people of Western Sahara the option of independence, limited autonomy as part of a greater Morocco, or full integration into Morocco, in stark contrast to Morocco’s refusal to consider independence as an option. Despite this, Polisario is being portrayed as an obstacle to a solution by Morocco and its growing list of international allies. Mr Conway refers to the Polisario as “separatists”. However, Western Sahara has never been part of Morocco, and this label is therefore entirely inappropriate. The real obstacle to peace in the region is Morocco’s intransigence and long refusal to act in either the spirit or letter of United Nations resolutions on Western Sahara.

Mr Conway may believe that he is helping to promote a solution to this long-running conflict, and he may have persuaded the 121 signatories to this EDM that this approach is both morally and practically sensible. However, it is neither. By endorsing the Moroccan Autonomy Plan, the UK will be legitimising Moroccan expansionism, and endorsing oppression and widespread human rights abuses. Implementation of the Autonomy Plan will not end the partition of Western Sahara, a partition of which few are aware, believing wrongly that Morocco occupies the entire territory. Morocco only occupies about two thirds of the territory, with the remainder being under the control of the Polisario. The Autonomy Plan will not solve the problem of the 160,000 - 200,000 refugees (higher than the figure admitted by Morocco and its allies) mouldering in camps in the Algerian desert - I doubt Morocco would want up to 200,000 pro-independence returnees to go back the territory from which it expelled them and their parents and grandparents.

Endorsing the Autonomy Plan will not make the region more stable or secure. Far from it. There is already an appetite for renewal of the armed independence struggle among the exiled Sahrawi, which the Polisario leadership is doing its best to contain. By removing the prospect of independence and a return home, endorsement of the Autonomy Plan would increase the likelihood of conflict in the region. The result would be a rump Sahrawi state (in the one third of Western Sahara that is under Polisario control) inhabited by angry, armed, pro-independence Sahrawi with nothing to lose, who feel they have been betrayed by the international community. I speak from experience as I work and travel regularly in the Polisario-run “Free Zone”, and am a regular visitor the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria.

If Mr Conway’s EDM is successful, it will only help to destabilise the Maghreb and parts of the Sahel, and will make conflict in the region more likely. There will be further humanitarian crises and perhaps an increase in refugee numbers. Algeria and Morocco will suffer internal destabilisation, and relations between Morocco and Algeria will deteriorate. This will have a negative impact on the regional economy and on poverty in this already troubled region. The risk of radicalising young Sahrawi is considerable, and any conflict will provide a context in which terrorism outside of the Sahrawi population can flourish.

I urge you and your colleagues to oppose this motion, not only on moral and ethical grounds, but also for the sake of stability and security in the Maghreb, and indeed in Europe. If Mr Conway’s EDM is successful it will be a disaster for the Maghreb, for Europe, and for Britain’s reputation as an honest broker which supports the right of people across the globe to self determination and freedom from oppression.

Yours sincerely

Dr Nicholas Brooks

—-
EDM 1465

WESTERN SAHARA INITIATIVE

15.05.2007

Conway, Derek

That this House notes and supports United Nations Resolution 1754 adopted by the Security Council on 30th April 2007; welcomes the initiative by the Kingdom of Morocco to grant substantial autonomy to the Western Sahara offering an opportunity to peacefully resolve separatists claims by guaranteeing to all Sahrawis inside and outside the territory a leading role in the bodies and institutions of the region whilst recognising Morocco’s sovereign integrity; and urges the Government to encourage all parties to respond to UN endeavours to establish an enduring solution to this geopolitical dispute of three decades duration.

Signatures: 121
—-

Moroccan Lackey of the Month

August’s award for blatant brown-nosing of the Moroccan “Autonomy Plan” for occupied Western Sahara goes to Edward M. Gabriel, who served as U.S. ambassador to the little kingdom from 1997–2001. In an article in The National Interest, Gabriel helpfully informs us that “Morocco is dedicated first and foremost to solving the humanitarian crisis that this conflict has engendered.” Some of the people featured in this short documentary film by Carlos Gonzalez might not recognise this description of Morocco as a benign entity acting in their best interests. It was probably the beatings by Moroccan security forces that clouded their view of Morocco’s role in the conflict.

Gabriel, and the editorial summary of his article on The National Interest homepage, refers to the Polisario as insurgents. Insurgency generally implies armed rebellion against lawful authority. However, there is currently no fighting in Western Sahara. Furthermore, Morocco’s sovereignty over this disputed, non-self governing territory is almost universally regarded as at least contested and at most non-existent. Finally, Western Sahara is physically partitioned (by a wall constructed by Morocco) into a zone controlled by Morocco and a zone controlled by the Polisario. At the present time, Moroccan forces are not subject to any action by Polisario forces, the Polisario being absent from the Moroccan-occupied zone. The term “insurgency” therefore seems wildly inaccurate and misleading, which is precisely why Gabriel has used it - he wants to persuade us that the Polisario are the bad guys, challenging a progressive, benign Moroccan state, not the representatives of an indigenous people variously displaced and repressed by an aggressive expansionist military power.

According to Gabriel, “Autonomy as “free association” with Morocco is consistent with the country’s evolving democratization.” So there we have it. By endorsing Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara, and by supporting its colonial policies towards a people who do not want to be ruled by it in a territory it invaded by force, we are promoting democracy. No wonder the US has such difficulty spreading peace, democracy and stability throughout the world, if this is what democratisation means to Washington. To me this looks more like another example of a callous, cynical, short-sighted, self-serving, and ultimately destabilising foreign policy dressed up as a modern civilising mission designed to spread western values. The reality is ugly, and the disguise just looks stupid when we look at how previous such missions have fared over the past couple of centuries.

Now that Washington has restored diplomatic relations with Libya, perhaps we can look forward to similar articles by ex-ambassadors to the Great Jamahiriya extolling the virtues of Colonel Ghadafi’s Green Book, perhaps as an alternative to the United States Constitution?