Sweden vs Morocco -- Another Swedish Diplomatic Blunder?

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) partially recognized state controls thin strip of Western Sahara region claims sovereignty over entire territory of Western Sahara Western Sahara -- a former Spanish colony SADR proclaimed by the Polisario Front - 1976, in Bir Lehlou, Western Sahara SADR government controls about 20–25% of the territory it claims territories under SADR control referred to as "the Liberated Territories" or "the Free Zone". Morocco controls and administers the rest of the disputed territory and calls these lands its Southern Provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic Polisario Front aka , Frente Polisario, FRELISARIO or POLISARIO "Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro" Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement working to end Moroccan presence in Western Sahara militating for independence of Western Sahara since 1973 originally against Spanish rule but after 1975: against Mauritania & Morocco 1979 onwards:  against Morocco only Polisario Front is based in Algeria, Algeria Polisario Front is responsible for the Tindouf refugee camps Polisario Front maintains a cease-fire with Morocco since 1991 (see Settlement Plan) Polisario Front is outlawed in parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control Sahrawi Sahrawis are Sunni Muslims of the Maliki rite or school As with most Saharan peoples living in the Sahara, the Sahrawi culture is mixed. Shows mainly Berber-Tuareg characteristics eg privileged position of women identical to the neighbouring Berber-speaking Tuaregs plus:  some additional Bedouin Arab and black African characteristics strong tribal & cultural links between the Sahrawis and Mauritanian populations, incl. historical allegiance to some Moorish emirates 1975 - Internatinal court ruling recommended the UN to continue to pursue self-determination for the Sahrawis, enabling them to choose for themselves whether they wanted Spanish Sahara to turn into an independent state, or to be annexed to Morocco or Mauritania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_people Morocco 99% Muslim Sunni majority at:  67% Official languages:  Arabic & Berber  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco Algeria 99% Muslim Majority Sunni - Maliki tradition EXTRACTS Morocco has blocked the opening of Ikea’s first store in the kingdom In Retaliation Of Sweden’s Plans to:  recognise a republic sought by the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. SADR is recognized by a number of states and is a member of the African Union, no Western country has formally recognized it, and activists have accused a number of states – including France and Spain – of backing Morocco in the dispute. United Nations recently renewed a peacekeeping force that’s been there since 1991. Morocco claims Western Sahara, which is rich in offshore fishing, phosphates and potentially large reserves of crude oil, as its territory and has controlled most the sparsely populated stretch of desert since 1975. By Jack Phillips on Oct 03, 2015 http://www.jewocity.com/blog/morocco-blocks-ikea-store-opening-in-retaliation-of-sweden-s-plans-to/88017 Western Sahara: The Historical Commitment Sweden Should Remember Friday 2 October 2015 - 18:51 EXTRACT Sweden among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras Yet there exists a solid historical and legal argument that has to be brandished in the face of the Swedish government to show them that by siding with the Polisario, they fail to respect the commitment they made over a century ago with regards to Moroccan territorial integrity. This argument will demonstrate to Swedish politicians and its public opinion that their position on the conflict over the years is based on a false historical assumption. Not only did the SADR not exist before 1976, but Sweden signed an international treaty with respect to Morocco in which it committed along with all Western powers to preserve Moroccan territorial integrity. By virtue of the Treaty of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, all Western powers, including Sweden, committed to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Was the so-called Western Sahara part of Moroccan sovereignty at the time? The answers is yes. The spirit of the Treaty of Algeciras was based on the international agreements signed between Morocco and some Western powers, mainly the United Kingdom, which recognized that this territory was an integral part of Morocco. According to Frank E. Trout, author of the book Moroccan Saharan Frontier, in accordance with the agreement signed between Morocco and the UK in March 1895, the British government recognized that the territory between Cap Juby (the area near Tarfaya) and Cap Bojador (present day so-called Western Sahara), belonged to Morocco. Since then until 1904, when the UK signed an agreement with France, the British, as well as the French and Spanish recognized that this territory was under Moroccan sovereignty. The premise on which the Swedish government bases its position is that the so-called Western Sahara never belonged to Morocco before 1975, and as such Morocco can lay no claim of sovereignty over this territory. However, this premise itself is false. Contrary to common belief in the West, Spanish occupation of the territory was in total violation of international law at the time. When the British government accepted the principle of a French and Spanish protectorate over Morocco, it clearly insisted in article 3 of the secret accord signed between Paris and London in April 1904 that Spain could not undertake any action that would alienate the sovereignty of territory of its sphere of influence. This British position was based on the understanding that the so-called Western Sahara belonged to Morocco and was not to be alienated by any Western power. However, in accordance with the French-Spanish accord of October 1904, Spain was given possession, but not sphere of influence, of the disputed territory, without informing Morocco or seeking the approval of the British, who had signed an agreement recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory. The arrangements made between Western powers were carried out without consulting with Morocco, which was the main party in interest in the agreements signed between France and Spain on the one hand and the France and the UK on the other hand. Without a renunciation of the agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 1895, the agreement signed between Western powers in 1904 by virtue of which they defined their spheres of influence in Morocco contravened international law. According to Frank E. Trout, even in the event London gave its formal approval and recognition that Seguia El Hamra (present-day so-called Western Sahara) was to become Spanish territory outside of the limits of Spanish sphere of influence in Southern Morocco, ”it would have meant a unilateral — and presumably secret — renunciation of the agreement signed with Morocco in 1859, [which would have been meaningless since Morocco was not informed of the renunciation.” Additionally, Spain was given possession of the Sahara based on a secret accord of which neither Morocco nor the other Western powers were informed. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Swedish government is taking a stance against Morocco, without taking cognizance of the historical fact that it was among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras, which committed those signatory countries to preserving Morocco’s territorial integrity. Instead, as a signatory of the treaty, the Swedish government should seek to help Morocco secure its historical and legal rights over the territory. That the predominant narrative on the conflict omits mention of this fact gives no license to the Swedish to dismiss the fact that they have failed to fulfill their commitment to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Morocco was the victim of Western colonialism and Moroccans have paid a costly price to regain the independence of their country and restore its territorial integrity. By going down this path, Sweden deepens the wound and turns its back on the commitment it made to the Moroccan people over a century ago. On the other hand, the Swedish government should not disregard the growing consensus among both diplomats and scholars in recent years that the concept of self-determination as it was perceived in the 1960’s is not a one-size fit-it all approach that can be applied to every territorial conflict, and that the UN settlement plan of 1991 has proved to be unworkable. Sweden’s Erik Jensen, who served as Head of MINURSO between 1994-1998 said in his book that the 1991 settlement plan has showed its limits, and there is a need to find an alternative likely to help the parties to reach a settlement. According to Jensen, Javier Pérez de Cuellar and Boutros Ghali, the two former UN Secretary Generals, were intimately convinced that the settlement plan was unworkable, and called on the Security Council to explore other ways. “Perez De Cuellar’s memoirs show that he had doubts about certain aspects of the settlement plan, and Boutros Ghali repeatedly hinted to the Security Council that it might consider an alternative way forward,” said Jensen. Therefore, rather than taking sides with one of the parties, it would be wiser for Sweden to help the parties explore the possibility of working out a middle ground solution where none of the parties would come out as loser. Samir Bennis     Samir Bennis is a political analyst. He received a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Provence in France. He also holds a Master’s degree in political science from the University of Toulouse I, a Master’s degree in Iberian studies  EXTRACT source http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/10/169343/western-sahara-the-historical-commitment-sweden-should-remember/ Morocco weighs boycott of Swedish firms REUTERS RABAT Morocco said it was considering a boycott of Swedish companies operating in the North African kingdom because of Sweden's position on the conflict over Western Sahara. The territory has been disputed since a war two decades ago. The government said Sweden has been campaigning to boycott products from Western Sahara and international companies with a presence there. Morocco has controlled most of Western Sahara since 1975 and claims the sparsely populated stretch of desert, which has offshore fishing, phosphate reserves and oilfield potential, as its own. However, the Algeria-backed Polisario Front seeks independence, and a United Nations mission was formed more than 20 years ago anticipating a referendum, which has never taken place, on Western Sahara's political future. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have backed Western Saharan self-determination, while France and Spain have been accused by activists and human rights organisations of supporting the Moroccan line. Moroccan authorities have already blocked the opening of IKEA's first store this week, citing a lack of permits. source http://www.dailysabah.com/money/2015/10/03/morocco-weighs-boycott-of-swedish-firms United Nations Current strength (30 June 2015) 210 total uniformed personnel: 26 troops 6 police officers 178  military observers 84 international civilian personnel* 162 local civilian staff* 12 United Nations Volunteers Fatalities 5 troops 1 police 1 military observer 3 international civilian personnel 5 local civilian personnel _____ 15 total  Approved budget (07/2014– 12/2014): $55,990,080 source http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/facts.shtml ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A United Nations 'mission' was formed over 20 years ago, on the basis that a referendum would take place ... but it hasn't. Why not? It looks like there's been a UN 20-year military presence and, apparently, the parties are no closer to resolving this dispute. Check out what is spent on interfering in the Western Sahara region.  Nearly $56-million in a mere 6-months was approved. If that's chewed up in 6-months, imagine how much money's gone down the tubes since 1991. Taxpayer funds of these countries are being spent on this: Image Source  |  Wikipedia ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Twenty-four years of taxpayer funds being blown on this, why? So it's austerity for European taxpayers, while taxpayer funds are funnelled to futile UN projects. Article Detailing The Involvement Of The Un In Western Sahara And Morocco. EXTRACT (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) The UN operation in Western Sahara between 1991 and 1997 was so ineffectual that it became one of the main symbols of UN waste and inefficiency for a hostile US Congress. It cost more than five million dollars a month yet did little useful work. UN staff were paid inflated salaries due to the 'hardship' conditions. It is claimed that some UN staff would overstay their tour of duty by a day so as to qualify for a second tranche of 'hardship' money. source http://newint.org/features/1997/12/05/un/ Clinton Foundation is reportedly getting cash from 'one of the world's most controversial mining companies' Colin Campbell May 8, 2015, 1:19 AM Another one of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors is drawing new scrutiny amid former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. A joint investigation by ABC News and Yahoo published Wednesday accuses the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative of “being hosted this week at a five-star luxury hotel in Morocco by one of the world’s most controversial mining companies.” According to the report, the Moroccan government-owned mining company Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP) has been criticised for “serious human rights violations” by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice. The company reportedly operates in Western Sahara, disputed territory the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975. The Washington Post reported that both human rights activists and US lawmakers have slammed OCP’s mining operation because it “does not have the consent of the indigenous population there.” ABC reported that OCP is “criticised for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.” David McKean, a Kennedy Center official, said the inhabitants of Western Sahara are being “systematically suppressed.” “OCP’s operations in Western Sahara are only appropriate under international law if they are acting in the best interests of the people of Western Sahara, and right now they are not,” McKeon told The Post. “The fact that OCP carries out its operations in Western Sahara so publicly seems intended to send the message that they feel they can do so with impunity.” Accordingly, OCP’s financial support for the Clinton Foundation raises questions about whether it is trying to curry favour with the US government. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) called the arrangement a “blatant conflict of interest.” “Morocco would like nothing more than having a possible future First Family condone its illegal exploitation of natural resources,” Pitt told The Post. Indeed, according to ABC, OCP has has “sharply accelerated its lobbying of US government officials in recent years — more than quadrupling its spending — as the Moroccan government was pressing its case for sovereignty over Western Sahara.” For its part, OCP defended both its operations in West Africa and its support for the Clinton Foundation. The firm told ABC that, despite its critics’ claims, it actually reinvests money into Western Sahara. OCP executives also reportedly said “their involvement in the Clinton Foundation was intended to help make phosphate-based fertiliser available to needy farmers in Africa — work the foundation has helped make possible.” “We have good spots and bad spots, and when we have a bad spot we try and improve it as much as we can,” said the company’s spokesman. “That’s all I can say, I guess.” The foundation also defended its connections to OCP by touting the nonprofit’s projects around the world. “Our sponsors made it possible for hundreds of CGI members to come together in Morocco to launch new programs designed to help hundreds of thousands of people,” a foundation spokesman told ABC. OCP is just the latest in a series of controversies related to the Clinton Foundation, some of which were spurred by a new book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash.” Schweizer accuses Hillary Clinton of trading State Department favours for money to her family foundation. Her campaign has aggressively dismissed Schweizer’s work as a unsubstantiated partisan smear. However, as Schweizer himself likes to point out, a number of mainstream news organisations have investigated the foundation based on information in his book. Notably, The New York Times published an in-depth story linking undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian government agency. source http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-foundation-funded-by-controversial-mining-company-2015-5 ꕤ