On December 10 like a stink bomb dropping from the sky, Trump's irresponsible ornithological declaration burst onto the Saharawi-Moroccan scene . In it, he generously and smilingly offered his recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, one of the 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories recognized by the UN and, since 1975, illegally and militarily occupied by Morocco. The fact in itself and coming from where it came, could not be a surprise, since the world has suffered over the last few years not a few insults to intelligence uttered and ordered by the individual in question. Think, for example, of the shame of others that we all felt when we sa him laugh at a reporter who suffered from arthrogryposis; in his childish tantrums that led to the unilateral abandonment of the nuclear pact with Iran, or in the supine ignorance exposed with hairs and signs when offering us, the earthlings, his ingenious cure of COVID through an injection of bleach.
Zulet, El Correo
From the point of view of international legality, the regrettable recognition is nothing more than an occurrence of bad taste that, yes, violates the foundations of international law and fails to comply with UN resolutions. It is precisely this flagrant violation of international law that has been unanimously highlighted and deplored by many international personalities, but also USAmericans such as John Bolton, former US national security adviser; James Baker, former Secretary of State and UN Special Envoy for Western Sahara (1997-2004); the illustrious Noam Chomsky, or James Inhofe, chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee.
On the other hand, it is quite true that once the ban is opened by Trump, surely many countries of doubtful democratic values and institutional coherence will take the opportunity to score a goal and faithfully repeat the gestures of their sheepdog, which will surely be taken advantage of by the Alawite Kingdom to reinforce its internal discourse and show itself even more, if possible, defiant and disdainful of the UN resolutions and the legitimate demands of the Saharawi people. Despite all this, we must emphasize some truths that, even though they are platitudes, it is convenient to remember from time to time:
1. The question of Western Sahara is a clear and unquestionable question from the point of view of international law and justice. Its decolonization did not take place at the time because the administering power of the territory, that is, Spain, did not fulfill its duty and its commitments with the Saharawi people and with the international community.
2. That breach, considered by many a shameful betrayal that Spain has dragged on for nine lustrums, is what spawned a fratricidal war for fifteen years, plus another thirty of nominal peace supervised by the UN to hold, supposedly, a self-determination referendum.
3. Since the 1991 ceasefire, Morocco, the aggressor country, has been systematically undermining all efforts by the international community to hold a referendum in Western Sahara. After years of maneuvering and beating about the bush, with the acquiescence of the United Nations and the complicity of some members of the Security Council, in 2007 it managed to turn the reason of being of the MINURSO into nothing. Its intention was to impose an autonomy for the Sahrawis within Morocco. Unfortunately, this is how the words pronounced in 1995 by Frank Ruddy, deputy director of the UN Census Control for Western Sahara, were confirmed: “The Moroccan influence in the Minurso is too deep-rooted to be annulled. The Minurso (...) as a credible institution is not salvageable”.
4. In the last thirteen years, the Moroccan Makhzen has used all kinds of bad arts with which it has blackmailed and bought politicians and intellectuals from many countries. It even recycled previous monsters to create a pseudo-political formation called Sahrawis for Peace which, curiously, is backed by political personalities from France and Spain.
Unexpectedly, Morocco ended up breaking the ceasefire in the illegal Guerguerat gap, forcing the Sahrawis to start a second war of liberation. For some, this is suicide. Others have been inviting the Sahrawis for a long time to postpone utopia and defend their dignity. They ignored that for the Sahrawis this amounted to “postponing the dignity of independence and defending the utopia of integration into Morocco” and this, for an overwhelming majority of Sahrawis, is something flatly unacceptable.
If in the end the continuity of the war is confirmed, probably the initial phase of artillery duels will give way to large-scale military actions. With the technological advances and the great leap in the military industry in the last two decades (Yemen, Syria, Nagorno Karabakh, etc.) , it is obvious that this second confrontation will be very different from the previous one, besides that there is always the possibility of that new actors participate in the contest. And within hours of the Security Council meeting on Western Sahara, what is certain is that David will remain David, and Goliath will remain Goliath.
--Stop what, you say?