By Arezki Daoud – 30 January 2019: The UN does a lot of good things, including humanitarian support to people in distress. One area where the institution is ineffective is bringing feuding parties in key conflicts and get them to agree no matter what. One of the recurring techniques used by the UN is to convey conferences of the protagonists and stakeholders to see if they can break the stalemate. The problem is that it rarely works. But you would think the UN would learn a lesson and readjust its approach? Not a bit. It has been doing this with Libya, conference after conference, all of which just led to money wasted on organizing and chatting, with no agreement between the feuding parties. If events that followed these conferences are any indicators of what kind of outcome we should, it generally means that the conflict worsens. Then the UN is doing it again, announcing that a new conference on Libya will eventually take place this quarter or next.
Some UN defenders would argue that the Libyan conflict is a complex one and that the UN should be forgiven for not being able to get to a resolution so quickly. OK but then how about the Western Sahara? This is the small desert stretch on the Atlantic Ocean, on the northwest side of North Africa. The UN is conveying what it calls the second round of talks, after those of December, which, as you guessed, led to nothing. When you read the statements made by UN ambassadors of Western countries, the upcoming conference is already slated to fail. Even the UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said “No one is under any illusion. This will take a lot of work from our side and the parties involved to move this forward.” The Western Sahara case is not likely to be resolved any time soon. And that’s simply because everyone is comfortable (except those housed in refugee camps in the desert), no one has an incentive to compromise or give up an inch on their respective positions, despite everybody spending tons of cash on lobbyists in Washington to make their point.
So what are the positions of the protagonists?
Morocco: Morocco is not likely to retract its position at all. This territorial claim (right or wrong, legitimate or not) is what is determining, even defining Morocco’s entire foreign policy. Its investments in Africa and its efforts to join regional groups in the continent are not just meant to increase exports. They are primarily meant to counter the positions of African countries that have traditionally supported Morocco’s foes, the Polisario Front, namely Nigeria, South Africa and of course Algeria. Nothing matters more to the Kingdom than annexing the Sahara, at any cost. To test that theory, all you need to do is to read the Moroccan press and see the entrenched and passionate commentaries on the topic published on the daily basis. The Kingdom’s position is not just the position of the monarchy, but it is certainty that of the general population, making it easy for the King and those in the Foreign Ministry to launch their diplomatic offensive without any compromise. So why would Morocco give up on its claim?
Algeria: Algerian officials have had a clever position on this conflict, of course siding in favor of an independent Western Sahara. Their position is that this is not an Algerian problem per se, and any resolution should involve Morocco vs. the international community and not through a bilateral process. Think of it as North Korea insisting that it must negotiate directly with the United States, and the US insisting that the crisis there is of a regional dimension, and it cannot go alone in talks with Pyongyang. For a long time, Morocco has been calling for direct talks with Algeria, in an effort to turn the conflict into a localized, and more manageable issue. But in terms of incentives, Algeria has nothing to lose in changing its position today. There is no substantial cost to Algiers, with the exception of maintaining some support to the Polisario. What would Algeria gain in allowing Morocco increase its territory? In fact, there is plenty of incentive not to allow such expansion to take place, including territorial leadership in the north of the continent. Also just like the Moroccan population supports its government’s position, the Algerian population is fiercely against the notion of a new “colonial power” in the region. The war of independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s has shaped the minds of the Algerian people in terms of pushing against any idea of colonialism, and so the Algerian government’s position appears as solidly set as that of Morocco.
The Polisario: The leaders of the Polisario insist on autonomy. The idea of pledging allegiance to the Alaouite monarchy of Morocco does not sit well with the Polisario. As long as they have backers, and are willing to maintain their opposition to Morocco’s claim, the Polisario will find it difficult to compromise.
The West: Zero interest in solving this problem. The Europeans and the US are very careful not to make too much noise on this conflict. Taking a position for one or the other would trigger a nasty reaction from the other side, and since both Algeria and Morocco have solid relations with the West, why would the West challenge that?
So what to do with this seemingly never-ending, low-intensity conflict, which consequences are actually more devastating than we think? I am personally skeptical and believe that as long as all the parties are comfortable in this zero-sum game, and nothing new is challenging them, we will continue to see the same, and no conference will change that.
UN eyes second round of Western Sahara talks in March
Jan 29, 2019 (AFP) – The United Nations plans to convene a second round of talks in March on settling the decades-old conflict in Western Sahara even though no major progress was made during the first round, diplomats said Tuesday. UN envoy Horst Koehler told a closed-door Security Council meeting that he intended to bring Morocco, the Algerian-backed Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania together to follow up on meetings held in Geneva in December.
Koehler, a former German president who took up the peacemaking role in 2017, won “unanimous support” from the council for his cautious step-by-step approach to bring all sides to negotiations, said French Ambassador Francois Delattre after the meeting. “Everybody is looking forward to the next round of talks that we expect in March,” German Ambassador Christoph Heusgen told reporters. “What we have to do now is to achieve some progress.”
The envoy discussed possible confidence-building measures such as demining and allowing families living in Algeria and in Western Sahara camps to be reunited, Heusgen said. The Polisario Front is demanding a referendum on independence for the territory, which Morocco has flatly rejected. Morocco, which annexed the territory after Spain withdrew in 1975, considers Western Sahara to be an integral part of the kingdom. The Polisario fought a war with Morocco from 1975 to 1991, when a ceasefire deal was agreed and a UN peace mission was deployed to monitor the truce.
During the talks in December, Morocco and the Polisario dug in their heels and held to their positions, but Koehler nevertheless proclaimed that a peaceful solution was possible. After addressing the council, Koehler briefed UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on his plan. “In Western Sahara, we are dealing with a long-standing issue,” UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. “No one is under any illusion. This will take a lot of work from our side and the parties involved to move this forward.”
The Polisario said it had proposed a prisoner exchange and the dispatch of human rights monitors to Western Sahara, but their proposals were met with silence from Morocco. Koehler will hold bilateral meetings with all the players in February to prepare the second round, said South African Ambassador Jerry Matjila, who described the diplomatic push as “very positive.” South Africa recognizes the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) proclaimed by the Polisario in Western Sahara, as does the African Union.
