Israel Hayom
by Eran Bar-Tal
In the wake of Mike Pompeo’s announcement on settlements, it is time to revisit the situation in the Sahara. The EU should think twice – and check the facts – before it automatically sides with the Saharawi minority that wants independence from Morocco.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement earlier this month, in which he said Israeli settlements were not inconsistent with international law, also had several clarifications attached.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
One of them was that this statement did not prejudice the legal status of other disputed areas around the world.
Just recently, I saw a motorbike go into a no-through road and asked the driver why he did that. His answer was, “The sign says there is no entry for those wishing to go to Jabotinsky Street. ” In other words, the driver inferred from the sign that the road does, in fact, lead to that street, even though the sign was supposed to carry the message: “Entry to Jabotinsky Street is forbidden.”
Thus, it is likely that in other places around the world people may take encouragement from Pompeo’s announcement, just as others will feel disappointed.
Even President Donald Trump’s detractors say that the Trump Era has redefined our world. The 45th president, they concede, has embarked on a path that is very different than what has been tried and failed for decades.
After an era where might made right, Trump inherited an era in which the conventional “enlightened” wisdom was that the mighty were always wrong. But now Trump has changed that and has pursued a policy where someone’s might, or weakness is not germane to whether they are right or wrong.
One of those places where Pompeo’s announcement was heard loud and clear was Western Sahara.
The area is under Moroccan control but a minority of its residents, comprising tens of thousands, want independence over that vast territory. A source in Brussels told me even before Pompeo’s announcement that the European Parliament is in a very turbulent period, and soon new committees will be formed based on the European elections that were held in May.
This period is known for the immense international pressure facing the parliament, in an effort to shape the committees and to stack them with supporters of various countries.
One of the lobbies currently working the hallways of the parliament is the Polisario Front, which represents 65,000 residents from Western Sahara who want to put an end to Morocco’s presence.
Western Sahara’s territory is 10 times the size of Israel and is about half the size of Morocco, the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the Middle East-North Africa region.
Spain left Western Sahara in 1975 and after which, Mauritania, Algeria, and Morocco all tried to seize it. Mauritania ultimately ditched that effort. Algeria, while no longer actively seeking its annexation, has nevertheless kept meddling there by arming the rebels against Morocco.
Morocco is the de facto power that is responsible for the residents of the area and has even built a physical barrier to demarcate its borders, but official bodies around the world have so far refused to accept the area as a legitimate part of the kingdom. Ironically, the Polisario Front wants sovereignty over an area where it has no way of governing viably as a sovereign power in the desert.
Morocco has a very liberalized economy. It has recently been ranked 60th in a survey ranking the “ease of doing business” around the world. Israel is ranked 49th. This also explains why it has not been more aggressive toward the separatists.
The Polisario Front is run by an unelected crop of leaders. Algeria, which is five times the size of Morocco but has just slightly more people, is primarily concerned with having access to the Atlantic Ocean so that it can export its natural gas and oil.
The United Nations has been pressuring Algeria and Morocco to reach some kind of understanding in this regard.
Rabat has been traditionally open to talks and compromises, and Algeria is also shown flexibility. Gone are the days that it would use the Polisario Front against Morocco.
Thus, Europe’s efforts to get involved in this matter have not helped the reconciliation efforts, they have only empowered the extremists, who feel they can get more diplomatic concessions or at least have more bargaining power.
The reactionary view sees the weaker party as the just party, and that is why the Polisario Front members have received support from members of the EU Parliament who also favor the Palestinians over Israel, to the surprise of no one.
Just recently, the European Court of Justice ruled that products from Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line cannot have the labels “Made in Israel.”
The EU has stressed that one can do away with labels altogether, but if you mark a country of origin you must not refer to the settlements as Israel. But that claim is purely naïve, because one cannot just do away with the country of origin – customs and health regulations require this.
The same manipulative policy was also adopted toward products made in Western Sahara, although this has almost no impact. The GDP of the hundreds of thousands of people in that region is less than 1 billion dollars, and half of it comprises services, which cannot be labeled.
The second most important source of national income is fishing. Morocco has recently struck a deal with the EU under which products from the sea in that area can be labeled “Made in Morocco.”
This only shows the complex diplomatic duplicity on the part of the EU. Polisario Front wanted to deal a painful blow to Morocco but the actual results are meaningless. As we have seen up close, the battle is usually over the hearts and minds, at the expense of the people, to the point that they have to remain without an identity.
Morocco has no interest in making the conflict continue. It can easily incorporate the rebels in its territory if they understand they have no other choice. That is, if they realize that they no longer have the Algerian funding. But it also plainly obvious that the handful of desert residents there have no legitimate claim to statehood or any real shot at independence, or even autonomy, unless such self-rule is under the auspices of one of the large African states.
There is nothing that can be as deterring as “absolute justice,” the utopian view that has prevailed in every parliament around the world, which calls for granting every minority its national aspirations, regardless of its motives and its history and without taking into account the question of whether it can viably realize its goals.
There is no feasible scenario in which the Saharawi people in that are can maintain a sovereign entity, and therefore the desire for absolute justice is a dangerous and misguided effort.
The Trump administration abandoned this radical view and it believes the US should not get involved in such conflicts. Or as the Duchess said in Alice in Wonderland: “If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does.”
