I Don't Trust the Polisario
When I first wrote about Western Sahara, I said that, whatever the political form of the solution, the Sahrawi should be free - free to enjoy the four freedoms which President Roosevelt proposed back in 1942.
That is obviously an impossible dream, so, practically, my wish is that the Sahrawi end up with as much freedom and justice as is possible.
I have not said this before, in fact I didn't fully recognize it before, but I have now concluded that Polisario can not to be trusted to lead the Sahrawi in a free and democratic country. If they were to morph into a Saharan government, I fear that Polisario would become just another tyrannical African government, under which freedom and justice would be only forlorn hopes.
Criticisms
ms of Polisario are coming out in unexpected places. The main story in a recent issue of the Moroccan magazine le journal was entitled: Le Polisario - Est-Il Fini? Is it finished? I don't think so, but the question is pervasive.
What evidence do I have for not trusting Polisario? Actually, there are many reasons, but I will give just three of them.
Looking at Polisario's history since 1975, they have never promoted free elections for their leadership nor free periodic elections for the leadership of their SADR, and there is no indication that they would change if they 'won'.
When the Sahrawi in the Tindouf camps arose in mass protests last summer, Polisario readily used force and violence against their 'own' to restore order.
Against the Geneva Convention, they kept prisoners of war for years after they should have been repatriated, and long after Morocco has released theirs. Polisario only then released them under strong international pressure. The prisoners were used as forced labor - against all Conventions - and tortured and killed. This is a clear indication that Polisario has no respect for either human rights or international laws and Conventions.
It has been reported that they have been enlisting Malis into their Army. This indicates that they do not have the support of enough Sahrawi to even fill enlistments, and this reinforces the strong feeling that they do not represent a large part of the Sahrawi.
The Sahrawi deserve better than Polisario.
---------------------------------------------------
Note added 12/26: A report issued by the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre (ESISC) on the Sahara issue , reported on here, concluded, in part, that:
.....the Polisario represents only a fraction of the Sahrawi people.
.....the Polisario, led by the same group for three decades, has remained in deficit of internal democracy.
.....the Polisario is more of an obstacle to any political solution than a genuine emerging State.
.....the Polisario Front does not seem, for lack of in-depth reform, to be able to play a part in any possible negotiated settlement.
A subsequent post has links to the complete ESISC report.
-----------------------------------------------
That is obviously an impossible dream, so, practically, my wish is that the Sahrawi end up with as much freedom and justice as is possible.
I have not said this before, in fact I didn't fully recognize it before, but I have now concluded that Polisario can not to be trusted to lead the Sahrawi in a free and democratic country. If they were to morph into a Saharan government, I fear that Polisario would become just another tyrannical African government, under which freedom and justice would be only forlorn hopes.
Criticisms
ms of Polisario are coming out in unexpected places. The main story in a recent issue of the Moroccan magazine le journal was entitled: Le Polisario - Est-Il Fini? Is it finished? I don't think so, but the question is pervasive.What evidence do I have for not trusting Polisario? Actually, there are many reasons, but I will give just three of them.
Looking at Polisario's history since 1975, they have never promoted free elections for their leadership nor free periodic elections for the leadership of their SADR, and there is no indication that they would change if they 'won'.
When the Sahrawi in the Tindouf camps arose in mass protests last summer, Polisario readily used force and violence against their 'own' to restore order.
Against the Geneva Convention, they kept prisoners of war for years after they should have been repatriated, and long after Morocco has released theirs. Polisario only then released them under strong international pressure. The prisoners were used as forced labor - against all Conventions - and tortured and killed. This is a clear indication that Polisario has no respect for either human rights or international laws and Conventions.
It has been reported that they have been enlisting Malis into their Army. This indicates that they do not have the support of enough Sahrawi to even fill enlistments, and this reinforces the strong feeling that they do not represent a large part of the Sahrawi.
The Sahrawi deserve better than Polisario.
---------------------------------------------------
Note added 12/26: A report issued by the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre (ESISC) on the Sahara issue , reported on here, concluded, in part, that:
.....the Polisario represents only a fraction of the Sahrawi people.
.....the Polisario, led by the same group for three decades, has remained in deficit of internal democracy.
.....the Polisario is more of an obstacle to any political solution than a genuine emerging State.
.....the Polisario Front does not seem, for lack of in-depth reform, to be able to play a part in any possible negotiated settlement.
A subsequent post has links to the complete ESISC report.
-----------------------------------------------
posted by hale at 12/21/2005 01:51:00 PM
12 Comments:
Hale,
I suspect you might have guessed that I'd have a reaction to this.
"I have now come to the conclusion that Polisario can not to be trusted to lead the Sahrawi in a free and democratic country." This thinking always gets me mad. You act as though Morocco were a bastion of freedom and democracy. When was the last time Morocco had an election to pick their king? How can you preach about democracy when Morocco is an autocratic monarchy?
"Looking at Polisario's history since 1975, they have never promoted free elections for their leadership nor free periodic elections for the leadership of their SADR, and there is no indication that they would change if they 'won'." Come on, Hale, the Polisario is a national liberation moverment living in refugee camps and fighting for its survival. We're not talking about Switzerland. Plus, au contraire there are many indications from the camps that the SADR would govern quite well. I would say certainly better that the corrupt autocratric Moroccan monarchy.
"When the Sahrawi in the Tindouf camps arose in mass protests last summer, Polisario readily used force and violence against their 'own' to restore order." First of all, haven't I been reading recently about Morocco's habit of readily using force and violence against its own? They sure are uncovering alot of graves all over the place. On all the violence that is supposedly used by the Polisario against their own, why don't we just have a referendum so they can vote for inclusion in Morocco. After all there are some 40,000 registered voters in Tindouf.
"Against the Geneva Convention, they kept prisoners of war for years after they should have been repatriated, and long after Morocco has released theirs." This ignores the hundreds if not thousands of Saharawi disappearances. Recent discoveries show that Morocco just killed a lot of their prisoners so there were none to return. If you want to talk about torture, why don't we look up some of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports on Morocco. Until the Cease-fire agreement in 1991, the prisoners held by the Polisario were not released because Hassan II either would not accept them back or becassue he refused to negotiate prisoner eschanges. And after the Cease fire their release was contingent on the holding of the referendum which of course Morocco made sure never happened
"This indicates that they do not have the support of enough Sahrawi to even fill enlistments, and this reinforces the strong feeling that they do not represent a large part of the Sahrawi." I'm really tired of hearing this because you really have no idea what kind of support the Polisario has among the Saharawi. Of course we could all find out, if Morocco would allow the referendum, but I suspect the Monarchy knows something that you don't -- which is that in a vote a lot more Saharawi would vote for the Polisario than for the Monarchy.
And as I've said many times before, most of this stuff is just not relevant to the main issue which is that the Western Sahara is a non-self-governing territory that was never under Moroccan sovereignty and that has the right to self-determination. What you do not seem to grasp is that Morocco is the invader, Morocco is the torturer, Morocco is the violator of international law. To nit-pick the Polisario given Morocco's record is hypocricy.
Fine post Hale.
Chasli -
I certainly did not post that to get a reaction from you; I posted it as that was the conclusion I came to after looking at both sides for several months.
I am not saying that Morocco is a paragon of virture; indeed, they are not.
Morocco of today is NOT the same as the Morocco of six years ago. There IS a big difference between the Morocco of Hassan II and the Morocco of Mohamad VI; the Morocco of Hassan caused those graves they recently discovered, while the Morocco of Mohamad immediately published the news on finding them; Morocco established a Reconcillation Commission to pay damages to the families of those injured by the Morocco of Hassan and openly published the report of that Commission.
No, I know enough to know that Morocco's hands were and still are not clean.
But in this case, Morocco is definitely the lesser of evils. And I firmly believe that the Sahrawi have a much better chance for a good life under Morocco than under Polisario.
Thanks for your comments.
Hale,
"But in this case, Morocco is definitely the lesser of evils. And I firmly believe that the Sahrawi have a much better chance for a good life under Morocco than under Polisario."
But isn't this the logic of the colonizer? The colonizer always feels that it is providing a better life for the colonized. There was a time that the French felt strongly that their rule over Morocco provided a better life for the Moroccans; and you can probably make a good argument that they were indeed providing a better life for the Moroccans. According to your reasoning France should have denied independence to Morocco. And didn't the slaveowner before the American Civil War also argue that he was providing a better life for the slave.
My point is of course that international law just does not allow the stronger, more viable, or more democratic countries to invade and rule over what they consider "lesser" countries. That Morocco might provide a better life for the Saharawi (which I vehemently contest by the way) is absolutely no reason to deny the Saharawi the same right to self-determination that Morocco enjoyed.
It is not for you or for Morocco to choose. All the Western Saharans have ever wanted is the referendum that has been promised them, so they can choose.
You are absolutely correct, Chasli.
What I said IS close to the logic of the colonizer, who has lots to gain with that attitude -- all that income from owning a colony. But I am not a colonizer. I am just a bystander and have nothing to gain. And that is a big difference!
I said in a previous post that we were starting to hear little noises which are increasing in intensity and which point to a growing consensus that Polisario should not control the next government of Sahara. In the post ahead of this one, on the bad blood between Algeria and Morocco, there is a link to an independent research report on Polisario which adds to that noise, and which I commend to your reading.
So far, this has been a two-player game, and the end point winner is one of these two players. Even with a referendum for independence, with Polisario controlling such a large number of Sahrawis in the camps, it is still a two-person game. I fear that Polisario will steal the vote by intimidation and force, or Polisario, with its infrastructure already in place and with its army trained and in place, will move to take over an independent Sahara by ANY means they can. I would really like to see a third choice - a REAL third choice - but we both know that is not a viable hope.
So as it stands (and having nothing personal to gain from the outcome), I believe the Sahrawi have the best chance under Morocco.
How do you stand on this, Chasli?
...Suppose after a referendum vote in which the Sahrawi voted for independence, they also voted that Polisario would be excluded from their government, do you think that Polisario would just walk away?
...Suppose for a moment that you KNEW, after a referendum vote in which the Sahrawi voted for independence, that Polisario would take over Sahara by any means they could, would you STILL be pro-referendum?
Just where do you stand?
In my last comment, above, I messed up the link to the report which I recommended reading. Here is a corrected link which I hope will work! After you get to that page, look at the bottom of the post and you will see three links for the report in French, Spanish or English
Dear Hale,
Look, I've been to the camps twice for academic research. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you bother to read Le Journal's article on the Polisario? It was largely a critique of the ESISC report. They called it a "remote controlled" report from Rabat. If you bother to read the ESISC report, maybe you'll note that it's based on interviews with only two former Polisario members now living in Morocco. How can you call the report fair or objective when they don't even go to Tindouf to get the other side of the story.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and go to the camps, spend some time there -- meet the white anglo Christian english teachers from Texas who live and work there for months at a time, talk to the permanent UNHCR officers, talk to the permanent ICRC reps, talk to the dozens of European NGO workers based in the camps and then formulate and opinion. In fact, try and schedule your trip around the Polisario's popular congress next year when the leadership is up for election and go and see the small democratic space they've carved out of the desert.
If Moroccan journalists like Ali Lmrabret are allowed to walk freely in the camps, surely they'll let you check things out.
Sincerely,
Yaqub
Yaqub
Thank you for your comment. I have always enjoyed hearing from you, as your comments make me think and add to my knowledge of the situation in the Sahara. I infer that you are a faculty member at a university or college, as you say that your visits were for academic purposes - I guess you mean that you were gathering data for a research study. If so, I'd love to read it.
Yes, I read the complete article in le journal, although I must admit that sometimes my translations of French are not the best. I also read the complete report from the ESISC, and nowhere in that report could I find that they said that it was based solely on interviews with two people. Then, you say: " How can you call the report fair or objective when ..." That's interesting - I reviewed all that you and I said in past statements and nowhere did I call that report either fair or objective; those were your words you put in my mouth! Shame on you! That is not fair discussion! Please to keep your comments accurate.
You suggest that I travel to the camps. That would be an enjoyable trip to take, but unfortunately is not possible. Even if I went, I don't think I would learn the 'TRUTH' from one, two or three such trips, as this TRUTH thing is a very elusive item. And I do know about the Texas Christian mission females - but only through their website.
You say that I have no idea what I'm talking about. It is probably true that there are large gaps in my knowledge of the situation. When I started studying it, I was completely undecided where I stood on Morocco vs Polisario. From the beginning, my main concern was with the Sahrawis, and I mean all of them: those in camps, those in Sahara who are pro-Polisario and those in Sahara who are not pro-Polisario. I wish I knew more about the feelings of all the Sahrawi, what percent really want independence, what fraction in Sahara take part in demonstrations, and so on. I have a feeling - and this is only a feeling, as I have no data on which to base it - that the demonstrators are not a large fraction of the Sahrawis in Sahara. It is hard to tell the true size of a demonstration from the amount of noise generated. And it must be difficult for the Sahrawis in the Tindouf camps to say something openly against the Polisario leadership when they are all beholden to the Polisario for every basic necessity of life. (That is one good reason why interviewers or researchers may not be able to learn the TRUTH in just one or two month visits to the camps.)
And, I came to two further basic conclusions: first, an independent Sahara would not be a viable economic unit, and second, the present Polisario leadership is not to be trusted to lead the Sahrawi to a better life. Visiting the camps would tell me nothing about the intentions of the leadership of the Polisario. I think a much better impression may be gained by reviewing the only available data: their actions over the past 30 years. I did that, and that is how I reached that conclusion.
I mentioned, in a recent post, the violent suppression of the demonstrations in the camps last June/July by the Polisario leadership. You did not reply directly to that, but instead talked about Morocco's suppression of demonstrators in Laayoune. I don't know why you did not reply directly; we both know that Morocco can be forceful and can overstep the bounds of normal peace-keeping. But I was not talking about them. How do you feel about Polisario's suppression of those riots?
Yaqub, altho it may not sound like it, my mind is not rigidly set on my conclusions. As more data comes in, I hope my mind will be open to change. I hope you would also keep your mind open.
hale
Hale,
Just got back from vacation and wanted to respond to your questions:
"How do you stand on this, Chasli?
...Suppose after a referendum vote in which the Sahrawi voted for independence, they also voted that Polisario would be excluded from their government, do you think that Polisario would just walk away?
...Suppose for a moment that you KNEW, after a referendum vote in which the Sahrawi voted for independence, that Polisario would take over Sahara by any means they could, would you STILL be pro-referendum?
Just where do you stand?"
Suppose, Hale, that after Moroccan independence, the Moroccans voted to do away with the monarchy, do you think the King would have just walked away? Oh I forgot the monarchy doesn't allow voting on its legitimacy. Actually didn't they try to get rid of him a couple times anyway?
And suppose for a moment that you KNEW that the Moroccan monarchy would hold on to power by any means they could, would you still be pro-independence? Here with the power of hindsight we DO KNOW that the monarchy held on to power by any means it could.
Where I stand is that both for Morocco and the Western Sahara, independence stands on its own merits. Yes, I was for Moroccan independence even though I knew that the corrupt and rapacious monarchy was not about to morph into a human-rights-loving democratic institution. And I support Western Saharan independence even more because there are many indications (Shelley again is very enlightening on this) that the SADR would be far more democratic, pluralistic, and respecting of human rights on independence than Morocco is or ever was.
Chasli
Hi Chasli,
Thank you for your interest in the Western Sahara Issues.
i do not think you really need to go anywhere, Chasli, to prove you are interested in human rights social justice. if you ever want to go to Hamadda camps and talk to Yaqob's favored list, do not. unless you really think talking to people themselves. Yaqob talks about the colonizer thoughts of what’s good for people. imperialism starts from who you are talking to. the NGO people and UN paople tired of being in the Hamada are not always the best people to talk to or people who went there for a luxurious trip ladled "research". does anyone talk to people themselves. to those uncorrupted by translated knowledge and English figures of speech. did Yaqob speak Hassania to people as he was there. Or is better to talk to “Christian English teachers from Texas who live and work there” or the “permanent UNHCR officers, ICRC reps and the dozens of European NGO workers based in the camps”. Well i guess you can peak to any one but the Sahraoui them selves. And here i am saying that Sahraoui people are eally sick and tired or others talking for them when they were not even asked for there opinions. And they are tired of researchers as well coming all the time to prove they deserve the scholarships they get. These people who were living for over 35 years under the heat od the desert need FREEDOM not formulated opinions.
Sahraoui...
Sahraoui,
I cannot but fully agree with you. We would all like to know what the Sahrawis in the Hammada camps think. What we hear is always the same propaganda speech aimed at preserving the interests of the polisario leadership. We must not forget that the status Quo is the perfect scenario for The polisario leadership. Why? Because even if the sahrawi people gain independance from a referendum, that leadership knows very well that he might lose his grasp and popularity very easily. A quick look at the tribes configuration in the Sahara and you will get my point.
Furthermore, if we hear about few demonstrations here and there in Laayoune, it is because Morocco is opening up democratically. No matter what we think, demonstrations like these would have never happened during Hassan II years. Can we say the same about the camps? Can you tell us about one election held in 35 years? What medium the sahrawi as a people have to tell us directly what they think after 35 years of suffering? Open up people! Give your children their basic rights and when you do, you can refer to international rights.
I agree with everything
polisario
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home