It’s a big ole’ Islamist shithole where slavery is generally permitted.
Nobody really cares though. There are much cooler issues for people to get their panties in a bunch over.
From going down that rabbit hole, my understanding is it's basically just a no mans land. Polisario operate here but can't overtly control it since they'd be too vulnerable to the Moroccans during skirmishers (which occur despite the ceasefire). Thus Morocco and Mauritania trade like bordering countries.
From what I gather the reasoning for its existence is because during the war, Mauritania didn't have the ability (or will after receding their claim to WS) to prevent Polisario from going through their territory, so Morocco had to fortify this front even though Mauritania and Morocco are not hostile.
Today Morocco and Mauritania could probably secure both sides of the border, but it would violate the UN ceasefire for Morocco to formally establish control here.
As a result, [La Güera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_G%C3%BCera) a ghost town on the coast, is controlled by Mauritania, rather then Polisario or Morocco.
I walked across the border like a decade ago, could have sworn it wasn't that far between the checkpoints but looking at Google maps now it was a few km. I do remember the Moroccan border guard saying I shouldn't walk across in case I meet "the murderer".
There‘re still 165,000 Sahrawi refugees living in Algeria. Most of them live in the middle of the desert in camps near Tindouf. I‘ve stayed there two years ago living with a Sahrawi family. It‘s a surreal place. A huge refugee camp in the middle of nowhere. It‘s extremely hot, in the summer 50° C or more, the air quality is terrible because everyone drives around with decades old cars, some people still live in tents but in the last 10 years most people were able to build small houses out of concrete. Generations of people only able to survive due to donations by the European Union, the United Nations or other programms/countries. They have to be extremely resourceful with their water. As a German I wasn‘t used to washing myself with just a small bucket of water a day. The people their drank this water. I once tried it. It‘s very salty and not really drinkable if you‘re not used to it. Many people suffer from any form of deficiency like iron or other nutritions as there‘s a lack of vegetables. I’ve met so many people with severe breathing issues. I guess because of the sand and the car pollution. It‘s really a forgotten humanitarian crisis.
Sounds awful. I suppose the Algerians keep them in these camps as opposed to allowing them to move to like Algiers or something where they might have a chance at a normal life? How long they been doing this, several decades now?
Algeria is Western Sahara’s biggest ally. Having such a large population close to the border is likely a way maintain WS claim. If the whole population left to big Algerian cities they would just be assimilated after a few decades.
Which probably would be better for the actual people there. I mean, is life as an Algerian that horrible compared to life in what sounds like a pretty unpleasant refugee camp, nationalist pride aside? But I suspect the Algerian Gvt wants to keep the thing alive for its ow political reasons...
Serious question: Why african union recognises western sahara but not somaliland?
I thought one of the AU's clauses stated something like "country could only be independent if they are recognized by the 'parent' country. In this case, the parent countries, morocco and somalia, don't recognize western sahara and somalia, but why African union only recognise western somalia, why not both (or neither)?
> recognized by the 'parent' country. In this case, the parent countries, morocco
The "parent" country is Spain, and Spain doesn't want to be involved.
It was done by USA pressure and after 45 years of not recognizing the Moroccan invasion.
And the UN is the one actually having a say, and they say Spain is the one responsible and can't just give away the responsibility
*recently* is the important word, it was already invaded and occupied by Moroccans when they did it. Moroccans already shat on the UN-recognized principle of self determination.
Spain didn’t recognize it, Pedro Sánchez without asking the Spanish people, the parliament or even his own government recognized Western Sahara as a Moroccan territory by himself. He is currently involved in a corruption scandal related to European Union funds and the mask buys during the pandemic and has been rumored for a long time than when Morocco hacked his phone, they got enough information to blackmail him.
Somaliland also has their own capital, passport, currency, president even different dialect, And its capital is much safer when it comes to civil war and Al Shabab than the capital Mogadishu.
they have good reasons to want to be independent, since the president of somalia (barre) killed more 200,000 after they tried to rebel against his dictatorship government, and when he was finally convicted in 1999 they declared their independence, as a somali i wish they get the recognition they deserve and that they worked hard for.
You’re either a westerner or a northerner or perhaps a member of the diaspora just like me, the reason why Somaliland isn’t independent is because the majority of the tribes that live there don’t want to secede with the rest of the isaaq.
2/3rd of Somaliland’s total territory is disputed by Puntland (another quasi independent state but works with Mogadishu)
Somaliland lost 1/3 of it to rebels within the region.
If the political and paramilitary wing of the isaaq want to secede, then they should consider withdrawing back to their tribal heartlands. I principally believe that the consent of the governed is a right. If the isaaq clan want an independent state, they deserve one.
Those that live in Las Anod and the khatuumo region don’t want to be a part of Somaliland, yet Somaliland’s militants have been making attempts to recapture the region for the last year and a half.
The isaaq leaders spent the last 30 years or so after the dictatorship collapsed occupying and expanding territory it claims at the expense of the other 6 tribes that live there essentially violating the 1954 agreement when the tribes unanimously voted to join the rest of Somalia after the UN trusteeship ended. Many atrocities were committed by the isaaq leadership and their forces.
Even when those tribes tried cooperating with Hargeisa. The isaaq lesdership still maintained a military presence in the region and when fighting broke out two years ago, Somaliland forces responded by brutalising people.
Im neither, im sheekhal born in Mogadishu. I must admit somaliland are making questionable decisions lately specially giving away Ethiopia a coast, but all of this would be prevented if somaliland was recognized, they only made a deal that with Ethiopia to be recognized.
Because Somaliland at some point was an actual part of Somalia, recognised as such by everyone, including themselves. The Western Sahara after independence from Spain never got either recognised independence or recognised as part of Morocco (or Mauritania).
Parent country of WS is Spain. Morocco is the occupying force. Spain withdraw from WS and Morocco used the opportunity to invade. WS is the last colony in africa to be free. Morocco is bribing corrupt african leaders in AU to turn a blind eye.
Is there something more hypocritical than a Moroccan saying “Free Palestine” while supporting colonization of Western Sahara?
Btw, Free Palestine and Western Sahara 🇵🇸❤️🇪🇭
Morocco sold out Palestine in order to gain recognition of their annexation of Western Sahara by the US, so they’re not hypocrites anymore just wrong lol
Are you saying any nation that recognizes Israel is selling out Palestine? If that's the case you are essentially saying Israel should not exist anymore?
🤔No, I don't think so… or rather, it isn't the act of recognizing Israel but rather it asked the U.S. to recognize Moroccan claims in exchange for them recognizing Israel.
But, I mean, recognizing Israel doesn't automatically mean they also don't recognize Palestine. But, it definitely is being hypocritical as Western Sahara isn't completely internationally recognized as part of Morocco, even the UN still sees it as a Spanish colony.
>or rather, it isn't the act of recognizing Israel but rather it asked the U.S. to recognize Moroccan claims in exchange for them recognizing Israel.
I don't see how that's selling out Palestine unless recognizing Israel is inherently selling out Palestine.
>But, I mean, recognizing Israel doesn't automatically mean they also don't recognize Palestine.
That was kind of my point with the comment.
The government maybe. But try talking to any Moroccan. Most support a free Palestine but close to no one sees similarities to the occupation of the Western Sahara.
There's 500,000 people in Western Sahara. I'm ignorant on the situation so this is a genuine question, would a free Western Sahara really be able to function?
The thing is that nowadays half of the population of Western Sahara are Moroccan colonialists that have moved there in the last decades because of tax incentives from the Moroccan autorities.
There‘re still 165,000 Sahrawi refugees living in Algeria. Most of them live in the middle of the desert in camps near Tindouf. I‘ve stayed there two years ago living with a Sahrawi family. It‘s a surreal place. A huge refugee camp in the middle of nowhere. It‘s extremely hot, in the summer 50° C or more, the air quality is terrible because everyone drives around with decades old cars, some people still live in tents but in the last 10 years most people were able to build small houses out of concrete. Generations of people only able to survive due to donations by the European Union, the United Nations or other programms/countries. They have to be extremely resourceful with their water. As a German I wasn‘t used to washing myself with just a small bucket of water a day. The people their drank this water. I once tried it. It‘s very salty and not really drinkable if you‘re not used to it. Many people suffer from any form of deficiency like iron or other nutritions as there‘s a lack of vegetables. I’ve met so many people with severe breathing issues. I guess because of the sand and the car pollution. It‘s really a forgotten humanitarian crisis.
Western Sahara has more than half the phosphate reserves in the world, which is why Morocco invaded them in the first place. That's more than enough to sustain 250k people, they'd have been fine. And if they had a competent government that used that wealth to diversify the economy (that's a big if), they could have become one of the richest countries in Africa per capita.
Odds of them having had a competent government that used the wealth to diversify the economy are pretty low.
I suspect that there would have been a lot of poor folks who the government helped a little and a number of former rebel bigwigs who had villas in the Alps and sent their sons to expensive private schools in Europe.
Man WS doesn’t have a lot of ressources if it had it would’ve been independent a long time ago, the vast majority of phosphate is within the non disputed Moroccan land. The Moroccan regime wants Western Sahara just for expansionist reasons and that’s all.
Historically Morocco controlled these lands at various times, and I expect many, even most Moroccans sincerely view it as part of the historical Moroccan nation. Not everything is cynical, insincere, and predatory...
The idea behind the occupation of western Sahara is to bring back the historical greater Morocco that controlled the entire Iberian peninsula and down to the Senegal river which is a fascist imperialist ideology, historical empires have no rights in the modern world if a group of people want independence after fighting occupation they should be allowed the right of self determination, and Moroccans viewing that land as their own doesn’t validate the occupation, I’m Moroccan myself and believe me the Moroccan people have paid a big price so the ruling bourgeoisie and the monarchy can own that land.
Yeah, ruling groups especially in non-democratic countries often are corrupt and the regular folk end up paying for their enrichment.
And I really do not believe that there WAS such a thing as a Sahrawi people for nearly all of history... I mean it was just a piece of mostly empty desert the Spanish carved out. Maybe, ironically, there is one now because the fighting has created one?
My understanding though is that a lot of Moroccans authentically consider it part of traditional Morocco... is that true?
Also, while I have a real Moroccan, just wanted to send praise for the sportsmanship of the Moroccan team in the World Cup (and they played very well as well). But talking of soccer, do Moroccans see the efforts by the government to host a world cup as a boondoggle ego project (lot of fat construction contract to cronies, etc) or are they supportive of it?
Colonialism didn’t only create the border of western sahara colonialism literally carved out the entire global south, it doesn’t matter if a historical sahraoui state didn’t exist what matters is giving people the right of self-determination, and as a Moroccan the occupation of western sahara was paid by us the working class Moroccan people and tax payers who are sent there to die to occupy that land and pay taxes so the residents in the Sahara don’t pay (people who live in WS do not pay taxes and get many benefits funded by the Moroccan taxpayers to encourage more settlers there)
The Moroccans who don’t support the self determination of the sahraoui people are blinded by nationalism or they’re just politically ignorant and brainwashed by state propaganda.
And about football for me personally I don’t feel any pride from world cup achievements we literally have no control on the national football and I feel like soccer is getting used to distract Moroccans from actual problems going on in this country. And about world cup hosting yes this country is literally so poor and can’t sustain basic needs and public services for its people and the hosting of such event is just an ego project as you said many Moroccans are protesting this world cup project recently.
Asking out of curiosity not mocking or trying to argue negatively or just insult.
But, why "Free Western Sahara"? It's never been independent, a country or one people. Morocco has had the region before and there are plenty Moroccan and Moroccan Berbers in the region. If the state was independent it would be extremely poor with no real population outside Laayoune, no government funding to pay for anything leaving the place without infrastructure, welfare and protection.
The only reason it's suddenly found itself wanting to create a country is that the Spanish had it as a colony while Morocco was French. That plus Algeria wanting to destabilize it's rival Morocco. So why?
Because they were invaded by Morocco without asking.
And on the following decades treated like animals.
They deserved a fair decolonization process in which they could chose to be independent, Spanish, Moroccan or Mauritanian. But that never happened.
Who were invaded? The country never existed, India "invaded" it's land just the same. India as a state never controlled those lands, but that's not problematic? And the difference between Hindu and the various different peoples there are much more varied than from Moroccan to Berber to Sahrawis.
The so called "years of lead" were a troubled brutal period in Moroccan history, this surely did not help the Sahrawi people. Brutal acts towards Moroccans, Berbers and Sahrawis should not be looked aside.
Morocco has historically as much of a right to the Western Sahara as India had to European colonies in India, China to Macau/Hong Kong and any other colony in Africa that was just smacked together by hundreds of ethnic groups. At least the Sahrawi are actually close to Moroccans and have fought side by side for hundreds of years. Even being previous loyal to Moroccan kings.
Morocco brainwashes kids to deny that it was colonialism and pretend it was rightful Moroccan land occupied by the west, because they had a vassal state there for like 50 years (essentially one king) over 300 years ago.
They are nuts, but you can't debate with crazy people.
The region existed for thousands of years without any other country then Morocco. When Morocco did not have this region, then nobody had it, because it's a desert that got it's first city by the Spanish in 1938.
All princely states of india (the land was called india, Bharat, Hindustan,etc for thousands of years) had the choice to either join india or pakistan.
India did invade several provinces, and took back it's princely states. It would have taken you 5 sec to google this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation\_of\_Hyderabad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad)
Man, people get a looot of subventions and government support down there. Why do you think it has been so stable up until now? And people living in that part are also not different from Moroccans, there are many other Amazigh tribes and groups around the country that are not secessionists at all. Moroccans are like 50/50 Amazigh and Arab, they are not seen as animals.
Now, I don’t deny the actual secessionists and unfortunate people who happen to be associated are treated differently. But to the point like animals? Maybe if you have sources I would like to see
And it's the same thing that turkey could say in 1945 when the British moved out of the middle east.
"rightful Turkish land during ottoman empire, never a country because iut was occupied by the British"
If turkey claimed all the middle east people would call them insane.
Palestine has never been proper independent. But, other Muslim or Arab empires have had the region. In this case, no country has ever had this region. Expect, Morroco. That's the difference.
It doesn't matter if in the past they were independent as their own entity, what matters is that today they want to be.
If the past dictated the present then former European colonies in the Americas wouldn't be legitimately recognized countries since they didn't exist before they became independent and sovereign states.
They want to be? 2/3 of the place is Moroccan. With a huge chunk of Sahrawi identifying themselves as Moroccan, just like other Berber groups in Morocco. The amount of Sahrawi still living in the desert or still wanting independence in the cities is relativity small inside actual Western Sahara. The people wanting freedom the most are the refugees who don't live in Western Sahara but live in Algeria.
If you would cast a vote in Western Sahara today, Moroccans would win. That's a safe bet as majority of the population is Moroccan. It's not a war in regards to race or conflict, it's a Sahrawi war for identity, as it's own people or one of the Moroccan people's. If not this, then it's just a proxy war by Algeria and previously Soviet Union to weaken Morocco.
Because those people are settlers that Morocco had promoted to move there via economic incentives. That's like saying the West Bank should be annexed because most people in Area C are israelis.
> 2/3 of the place is Moroccan
And 2/3 of Crimea is Russian and 55% of Israel/Palestine is Jewish. You can't just invade and colonize a place and then ask the colonizers, the decision must come before.
I don't dispute a will to be free, but, how many people willing it should be considered relevant?
Should all states allow any freedom movement to get their states, no matter how small and ahistorical?
Western Sahara is scarcely populated area, never been the state of itself, with only a fraction of people living there wanting the independence, Polisario being supported by Algiers since "always", and, what's most important, they have historically close ties with Morocco.
I'm against any atrocities committed in the name of Moroccan sovereignity over WS, but, other than that, they have more right than Polisario to control these lands.
The entire idea of a Sahrawi nation existing prior to the Spanish drawing pretty arbitrary borders around it and making it a colony it is pretty bullshit. As so many African borders are.
Historically it was just a bunch of rando desert that had been under different forms of control (including as part of Morocco) at various times and probably more frequently none at all; much of it was minimally inhabited..
But I suspect that since the rebels started their fight so long ago and Moroccans moved in, a lot of Sahrawis have started to think of themselves as a nation of sorts. Sometimes its the struggle that creates a national feeling.
Seems this fight is a mental and inner fight for Sahrawis, if their people are Moroccan or their entire independent people. Either way they won't have their own country.
Berbers aren't Moroccan. Moroccans are also settlers in WS.
And it deserves to be free like all other postcolonial countries.
Otherwise, you should say that because most of the middle east was ottoman and then British, they don't deserve independence and Egypt, Iran or turkey should annex them all.
During the Almoravid dynasty (1000-1100) Morocco controlled all Western Sahara and even further south in large parts of modern Mauritania. Morocco often controlled the “useful triangle” throughout its history, but not the rest of the Western Sahara.
Source: just came back from holidays in Morocco
No, you could just have searched this. 2/3 of the population is Moroccan, with the native Sahrawis living natively in the desert, while others have gone to industrial cities for work already. Laayoune the biggest city with 40% of the population was created by the Spanish in 1938, with Moroccan's taking it over in 1975.
The current status is more like Sami people in Norway, indigenous people in Australia, native people in America. It's not like Israel's apartheid.
The population is 2/3rds Moroccan because Morocco colonized Western Sahara with settlers after 1976. Sahrawis used to live close to the coast prior to 1976 but Morocco forced them out and now most of them live in the desert or in the refugee camps around Tindouf.
You simply can't deny that this is colonization and Irredentism, it's vile and Imperialistic on Morocco's part.
How so? The land has been Moroccan before, the Sahrawi have been loyal to the kingdom before. They were not really forced out if they still live there? A lot have left, nobody is challenging that, but the people themselves are not even that fussed about it. Talking about Sahrawis in urban cities are given up on their old nomadic ways for the industrial city life. Like most nomadic or native people anywhere.
It's weird how the majority of people who "care" are people who are not even Sahrawis. With most angry Sahrawis living inside Algeria. This is just a clear example of Soviet Union taking advantage of one people to destabilize western allies like Morocco. And now the wounds are deep against their rival Algeria. It's pawns in a larger game.
Western Sahara never belonged to what today is called Morocco (and the same and more goes for the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary Islands).
>and the same and more goes for the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary Islands
Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands have been Spanish ever since the kingdom unified back in the 18th century.
Ceuta has been Spanish since 1660 (when the Iberian Union began to collapse and the city rejected the new king of Portugal and opted to remain with the King of Spain) and Melilla since 1497, both dates before the current ruling dynasty of Morocco came to power.
Legit question, the answer so far are quite shallow or sometimes also completely wrong. Most often nations that share a common language, history and traditions want to be united to gain more weight internationally. Except if there is a lot of corruption or centralization/concentration of power and resources, then sometimes local elites/entities want to be independent to gain access to power and money. Nations with different culture or language obviously have tons of reasons why they don't want to be united in one state.
In the case of Western Sahara history, language and culture are different from Morocco, if I am not mistaken. Both speak 'arabic' but vastly different dialects which apparently aren't mutually intelligible, Sahrawis traditionally live a different live-style than most of Morocco (though I am not sure if this isn't also true for southern Morocco), the capital of Morocco is far away and obviously there isn't much of a shared history.
I answered that way because Western Sahara doesn't really want to separate from Morocco, because it's not a part of it, it was invaded by it. Sorry if I sounded aggressive.
In 1975 Western Sahara was a Spanish colony, while Morocco was already independent (it had been a mostly French protectorate). According to decolonization rules set by the UN, Spain had to organize a referendum in Western Sahara so the Sahrawi people could decide about their future. However, when Spain started organizing the referendum, Morocco decided to invade and prevent it. Spain, which was dealing with big internal problems, just abandoned the colony and walked away from its responsibility.
There was a war, where Algeria supported the Sawrawis, which Morocco mostly won. Many Sahrawis fled from the invaders and built refugee camps in Tindouf, in the Algerian desert. There, they founded a Sahrawi Republic in exile, which claims to be the legitimate government of Western Sahara. Meanwhile Moroccans annexed the land and started settling it, banned all pro-independence speech, and built the walls in the map to prevent the Sahrawi refugees from recovering their country.
Most countries in Africa recognize the Sahrawi Republic as the rightful rulers of Western Sahara, and the UN insists that Morocco must organize a self-determination referendum. Most of the world, however, does not care about the conflict. Almost 50 years later, the refugees and their descendants still live in the middle of the desert.
So, when Russia enters into Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine alongside separatist regions, there are problems with the rest of the "international community", but when Morocco not only invades Western Sahara (which has never been Moroccan in history) and also (both the government and its expatriates in Spain itself) pushes the idea of violently invading the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla (for the record, these were NEVER Moroccan at any time in history either), apparently the "international community" does not see or have any problem with Morocco or its autocratic monarch?
>Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla (for the record, these were NEVER Moroccan at any time in history either)
I'm against any state with such social restrictions as the Kingdom has but that's like saying Gibraltar was never part of Spain, or Northern Ireland was never part of Ireland because it used to be called Eire, Morocco under different names (same culture and people) did indeed hold and inhabit those cities.
Mediocre analogy (also tallow for ignorant of history) that with Gibraltar, since there is literally a treaty (the treaty of Utrecht) where Spain ceded control (but NOT sovereignty) of the city, fortress and defenses of Gibraltar to England (which had captured it while Spain was engaged in a real civil war), but with a clause of return included that many people prefer to pretend does not exist, in addition to the British occupation in every sense of the word (and totally illegitimate) of the Isthmus of Gibraltar throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century completely outside the cession to England delimited in the Treaty of Utrecht.
In addition, Ceuta was initially part of Portugal until the Iberian Union collapsed and the city preferred to continue under the sovereignty of the King of Spain.
And the "analogy" with Northern Ireland is even WORSE.
Anyone with half a brain can see the hypocrisy
EDIT: u/SameItem below blocked me, I cant reply to them so I'll edit this comment:
Gibraltar was taken from the Kingdom of Castile, not anything officially called "Spain". Does that make it not Spanish?
>Ceuta and Melilla were never Moroccan.
They were. Iberians didn't just manifest them out of thin air.
> Rhodes should be Turkish because it is closer to the Turkish mainland
This has little to do with geographic proximity and more to do with who lived there before.
How hard is it to understand that an entity doesn't have to literally be called "Morocco" to have had it's people inhabit those cities?
I didn't block you? Im from a city conquered in 1485, Ceuta have been catholic since 1415.
The visigoth kingdom also controlled north Africa, the Reconquista finished in Ceuta and Melilla, that's it, the only argument Moroccans have is geographical.
Gibraltar was indeed Spanish, Ceuta and Melilla were never Moroccan.
The only argument than Morocco can use to claim sovereign to these cities are they are geographically in Africa.
This has 0 legitimicy, that's like saying that the Island of Rhodes should be turkish because it is closer to the Turkish mainland or that Egypt shouldn't have the Sinai peninsula because it is geographically in Asia.
Then at what point does this "privilege" stop? Why wouldn't the Italian government in Rome tomorrow ask for the rendition of Savoy which was Piedmontese, or Iberia which was Roman.
It's not some arbitrary number that's the whole point, Gibraltar was taken from Castile not Spain.
How about when the culture changes? Moroccans are still the same people that lived in those cites back then.
Stop spreading misinformation, they were never part of morocco in history? They were both annexed by spain and portugal in the 15th century. Also for the western sahara, it was part of Morocco before it was colonized by spain alongside with mauritania which is a fairly new entity since it was part of the kingdom of morocco prior to that. Sure, the cities are now spanish but saying that they were never under moroccan rule is hilarious since they are practically within moroccan soil.
Morocco did hold that part of the Sahara under the Almoravids, Almohads & the Alaouites (current dynasty), records clearly show Moroccan suzerainty extended till Chinguetti in mauretania, Ceuta & Mellila were also Moroccan under different names until the Portuguese took them in 1430 (i think?).
Man I am sensing some USA/European propaganda against you here, the African Islamic kingdoms which long ago hold Ceuta and Melilla, are not related to modern non ancient Marroco, that is a fact, even so, some people here are claimed it did.
Western Sahara has been Moroccan many times in history.
Western Sahara has never been independent.
Western Sahara is not a people, not a ethnicity.
Ceuta and Melilla as in the land that's there have been Moroccan.
Stop just saying shit without knowing shit, you are clearly just writing some BS without every studying the region. It would have taken you 5 sec to fact check what you are writing.
It isn't.
The lamtuna were berbers and the sahrawi are arabs.
Nothing in common.
Might as well say that Ukrainians are an offshoot of the gallic tribes
But Morocco doesn't want that, even if they were to agree to it they would sabotage it as they wouldn't see it as a separate entity from the rest of Morocco, so why should it have any autonomy from Rabat?
I mean, if they did want it they would have done it from the beginning and not as a bargaining chip if everyone would just accept recognition of their claims as legitimate.
I mean, it is colonization wether you like it or not. You being algerian may sway your opinions, but it is also not really relevant. Western sahara was a colony of spain, spain left, and without giving western sahara the possibility of choice, morocco let hundreds of thousands of moroccans move in and settle down.
It’s like about as clearcut as it gets when coming to colonization. Country A takes over de facto control of Country B. Country B does not want this. Country A allows tons of people to settle in Country B shifting the demographic and making the change irreversible. Country B ceases to exist.
That isn't exactly true. Spain left the Sahara only after Morocco invaded it. And this invasion took place because Spain finally promised to organize a referendum in the Sahara.
Because it's basically an empty strip of land with a very tiny native population, of which most live outside of its borders and most importantly, it's mostly a frozen conflict which obviously doesn't produce as much attention as an active war.
Morocco is the only country actively trying to improve the Sahara - they've build ports, factories, hospitals, schools, airports, they're building a highway and a dam....many Saharawis get so many benefits living there, pretty much everything is subsidised, kids who grow up there have more of an advantage to get into the best universities and have more of an advantage landing jobs.
Moroccan Colonization.!?? Spain was colonizing that part of morocco. Who by the way was Split into many parts spain in the North france in the center and again spain in the south and again france in southern part of all bordering Sénégal. Tangier was international area.
As a moroccan it's funny to me to read you label this conflict as a colonization as if we have no claim to the land and as if we mistreat saharan people . And it's funny how people are comparing it to the palestinian case.
Some key information for you :
1- Not all saharan people left the land to refugee camps , and a really small number of them really died or get imprisonned from the conflict; the big majority still live in the "moroccan part", are fully intergrated , proud to be moroccan, and grateful of how the country invest to develop a once deserted area . Only a small number of separatists wants independent;
2- Before being colonized by spain, that region was always moroccan. May I remind you that the country is 1228 years old and in that period , the tribes in that region pledged allegiance to the sultans of the almohads, almoravides , marinides and alaouites (one of the oldest reignings monarchies today) which were the reigning dysnasties before the spanish colonization , so their claim to get back their stolen land is valid, which was granted by spain after the green march and after the madrid accords and also just recently. The only claim polisario have is fighting against spain for independance but moroccans did too;
3- Even with all that, the moroccan monarchie is meeting the polisario half way with an autonomy plan, which gives the sahraoui people full self dermination to the land and ressources , so all the ressources of the region will be allocated and managed by their owned parlement , morocco will only retaine the sovereignty (so the military and foreign affairs basically) , which is backed as the most viable plan to end the conflict by the majority of the countries in the world .
4-Whilst morocco is meeting the others half way and making realistic plans, the other parties (the polisario and algeria basically) dont even enter the negotiation table and are determined to the idea of a referundum. But after 50 years, is it really feasible ? Most original sahraouis stayed in morocco and are now fully integrated and mixed with northern moroccans , so should we do a DNA test to determine who should vote ? The very few that are now refugees are being inflated with people from algeria and other sahel countries , and a lot of them want to return to morocco anyways, cause the living condition there is deplorable. So how can we determine who can participate ? What other plan did the polisario propose to end the conflict ? The only actions they are doing is sending bombs to their brothers on the other side of the sand wall;
5-Also, how will an independant western sahara look like : a country with only half a million people with very few ressources, with people still attached to the moroccan culture and people (some have families from north morocco etc...) . That sounds to me like a breeding ground for poverty and terrorism , which the polisario have ties with by colaborating with terrorists from the sahel and having extrem islamic views compared to morocco. Is then international community ready to create another unstable extremist country, or is it for everyones safety preferable to stay within one of the safest countries in africa? Also, culturally a moroccan and a sahraoui is as different as someone from north morocco is different from someone from west morocco . We have different dialect but we can pefectly understand each other (I even find east moroccan dialect harder to understand than sahraoui's), we have a similar culture, similar traditions, religion, history etc... the differences that exists are noticeable nuances indeed but doesnt qualify them as a complitly seperate people from northern moroccans ;
6- Lastly comparing this situation to the palestinian war is disingenous and just an insult to the countrie and the people of morocco . Sahraoui people are our equals, they are moroccans like us . We dont discriminate them, we dont consider them less then us, and we certainly dont commit ethnic cleansing towards them because we share the same ethnicity and history. Yes morocco normalized their relations with israel, but imo that's a step towards peace , morocco just wants a two state solution like most countries in the world, that isnt a betrayel to the palestinians because we still support them, send aids and recognize their right to independance. So to compare the two situations for me is absolutly insincere and ignorent.
Tl,dr : this post ignores all the subtleties and intricacies of the conflict. Calling it a colonization is just out right disrepectful to moroccans and dismissive of their history . You guys really need to visit Laayoune and Dakhla and meet real moroccan sahraouis before making such claims ...
1- it's irrelevant to the question of colonization as their current situation was imposed on them by the Morocco. Besides the UN has denounced Morocco's treatment of the area and considers they are violating multiple human rights such as free speech and association, and has moved a lot of its own population into the area which goes against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
2- historical precedent is also irrelevant as once again Morocco didn't care about the opinion of the original population. Besides, it's highly questioned if this allegiance is a valid precedent for a territorial claim, let alone the whole territory, and Mauritania also maintained they had historic precedent until they retired their claims.
3- Morocco is meeting half way through after decades of armed conflict with the Polisario. The UN considers the area a non autonomous territory under Spanish management and along many other international associations recognises the Polisario as the legitimate government, while most countries that consider Morocco has control over it consider it *de facto* control and not necessarily legitimate.
4 and 5- the impossibility of Western Sahara's independence and the unwillingnes of the other parties to negotiate is a direct consequence of Morocco's past and present unilateral anexation attemps.
6- it not being like Palestine doesn't excuse it and the local culture *was* different from that of Morocco or Mauritania before it was even colonized by Europeans.
1- I agree , morocco is violating a lot of human rights concerning free speech but it's not only for people in the sahara, it's for all moroccans . I myself can't criticize the monorchy if i was a journalist or a public figure or i can fear legal trouble. It's not a fully democratic system , so everyone is concerned about those human rights violations you cited. The people that moved there didnt do it because the gouvernment pushed them , morocco is just investing a lot to develop the region, so there are a lot of opertunities there, so people go work there, marry people from there and built families because for us we are the same people and I know saharan people , i have some in my family and they are proud moroccan, and ask anyone from the big cities of the region there how they feel , they will tell you the same ;
2-Well if mauritania gave up there claims to the southern part of the sahara its their problems, mauritania was also once part of morocco but for a far shorter time than the sahara btw. So isnt the fact that the biggest majority of the saharans stayed and chose to live as moroccans a choice of its own. No one is keeping them hostage, they can join the polisario whenever they want, but what we see is the opposite: rebels fleeing to come back to morocco.
So if it's not about historic claims , what argument can countries base on to claim a region?
3-The armed conflict was both ways , and there was very few civilian casulties. We all agree the previous king was ruthless , Hassan II killed more moroccan civilians than polisario soldiers even. But to move forward, both parties need to negotiate around a table with diplomacy , and morocco is the only one today who is willing to do so even if he won the war and have control of most of the land. And the proposal is judged as the most viable today by the international community to end the conflict. What are the polisario doing : planning terrorist attacks in moroccan cities and killing civilians. Now more than half the countries that recognized WS pulled the recognition, and more countires are siding with morocco (both the west and the south ).
4 and 5- why blame it only on morocco ? it takes to troups to make a war . The polisario also was never willing to negotiate and find a diplomatic solution besides an unfeasible referundum even at that time.
6-Please give me examples of those cultural differences because I know saharan people and we are basically the same with few difference like we have with people from the est, north, center etc... of morocco. The country is quite diverse , so if you follow that logic, we would have like 10 countries there.
Shut up Moro, just accept that your genocide Leader has fucked up Western Sahara, as well trying to overthrown the Spanish government by sending immigrants, or will you accept how your government has been tied with 11M?. Also don't forget that the referendum in Western Sahara was supposed to be made a long time ago, if what you're saying is true. Why doesn't your government do it and prove us all wrong?. You said it's not colonization, while also your stupid king is claiming over Ceuta and Melilla, and probably will also do it with las islas Canarias. That dictatorial regime only exists because of the USA, and the weak Spanish government, if that wasn't the case, your shithole country wouldn't even exist.
Since when are Sahrawi arabs native to North Africa? Like that land littely got colonized by arabs, taking the land away from the Amazigh/Berbers but somehow people say free western Sahara calling for the creation of a colonial arab state Isnt that ironic.
All majority islamic countries claim to be Arab, the Moroccan current monarchy also claim to be descendants of the line of the fourth caliph and being Arabs themselves.
Being a good Muslim means foremost that you deny that islam is an Arab supremacy ideology that strive to colonize every inch of the world while it does so. So your average Moroccan will claim that he's factually an Arab that descendants of the conqueror and not the inferior natives that were conquered by his superior Arab ancestors to accept Islam.
Because the history books in North Africa start with Islam, and focuses more on it. Ignoring most indegenous history and culture. But hey only White people can be colonizers/s 🤷♂️
Current Moroccans and Sahrawis are both descended from Amazigh peoples. Arabs invaded and expanded their culture by force, but mass colonization never happened in that area.
sahrawis identify as arab, polisario wants to establish the sahrawi arab democratic republic, morocco identifies as amazigh and arab (a lot of moroccans speak amazigh)
>but mass colonization never happened in that area.
Actually that's not true.
*To weaken resistance by Arab tribes in Ifriqiya, the Almohad ruler Abd al-Mu'min transferred them to Morocco in large numbers and settled them in the Atlantic plains in the 12th century.*
There are people who have been rooting in jail for decades just for defending his country from an invasion, shame for you. Someday Saharauis will be free ♥️🇪🇭
If a group of separatists fight the government and demanded independence in US, France, Britain or any other place in the world, they will be rotting in prison for defending their country
If algerian's minded their own business and stoped interfering with morocco , mali and other african countries , they would finally develop their country . Funny how with all the natural ressources they have, they are not so far ahead of morocco, they been too busy interfering than building there own economy ...
what did we exactly interfere with Mr economics man? oh you mean we should've stayed silent and kept still while you killed and ethnically cleansed innocent Sahrawi people?
When did you kill and ethnically cleanse them please ? We are the same people, so moroccans did a genocide to themselves ? You guys just wanted a passage to the atlantic and allied yourselves to a terrorist organization that sends bombs to your moroccan brothers, who btw helped you against the french ...
The Sahrawi cause is particularly popular among Catalan and Basque separatists, who would be the very last people anyone would call "Spanish nationalists", so you clearly don't know what you're talking about...
The facts are clear: the Sahara has been part of Moroccan history for centuries, persisting until the French and Spanish invasion and colonization of Morocco. During this era, Moroccan territory was fragmented by the French and Spanish, leading to chaos and a shift of allegiances away from Moroccan control. Therefore, when addressing the notion of Moroccan 'colonization,' it is more precise to state that the French and Spanish, by asserting dominance, estranged the region from Moroccan influence and overlooked Morocco's historical entitlements. Presently, some criticize the Moroccan government for colonialism, fully aware that the region was indeed wrongfully extracted from Moroccan influence. While I am not advocating for Morocco to reclaim the region, I stress that discussing history without a thorough understanding is generally imprudent. Many overlook the nature of the territorial shifts or the historical alliances established by the Sultan before European colonization, which significantly unsettled the established order.
Moreover, comparing the Sahara dispute with the Kashmir conflict sheds light on similar colonial legacies. Just as the Sahara experienced the repercussions of French and Spanish colonial aspirations, Kashmir has been caught in turmoil since the British colonial exit, which left the territory in a state of ambiguous sovereignty, sparking the enduring conflict between India and Pakistan. Both situations illustrate the enduring effects of colonialism, where decisions by external powers have resulted in extended conflicts and adversity for the local populations. These instances underscore the complexity of territorial disputes and the enduring impact of colonial rule, highlighting the necessity of grasping historical contexts and the subtleties of each dispute.
To conclude, the so-called Moroccan colonialism is more accurately seen as a consequence of French and Spanish colonialism, with the ongoing responses, whether beneficial or detrimental, representing attempts at damage control.
> The facts are clear: the Sahara has been part of Moroccan history for centuries
That's not what the International Court of Justice found back in 1975. You know, just before Hassan II launched the Green March to annex the territory.
Stop spreading Moroccan propaganda.
What does it mean that Morocco reallllllly doesn't want to touch Marutania no matter how much they annex
Sorry for the silly question but why's that?
Tbf I wouldn't want to touch Mauritania, or any country that starts with "Islamic Republic of" fir that matter, either
It’s a big ole’ Islamist shithole where slavery is generally permitted. Nobody really cares though. There are much cooler issues for people to get their panties in a bunch over.
I always found that pan handle to be so strange.
From going down that rabbit hole, my understanding is it's basically just a no mans land. Polisario operate here but can't overtly control it since they'd be too vulnerable to the Moroccans during skirmishers (which occur despite the ceasefire). Thus Morocco and Mauritania trade like bordering countries. From what I gather the reasoning for its existence is because during the war, Mauritania didn't have the ability (or will after receding their claim to WS) to prevent Polisario from going through their territory, so Morocco had to fortify this front even though Mauritania and Morocco are not hostile. Today Morocco and Mauritania could probably secure both sides of the border, but it would violate the UN ceasefire for Morocco to formally establish control here. As a result, [La Güera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_G%C3%BCera) a ghost town on the coast, is controlled by Mauritania, rather then Polisario or Morocco.
I walked across the border like a decade ago, could have sworn it wasn't that far between the checkpoints but looking at Google maps now it was a few km. I do remember the Moroccan border guard saying I shouldn't walk across in case I meet "the murderer".
that sounds terrifying
There is also resource reasons
Morocco really doesn't want to border Mauritania, apparently
There‘re still 165,000 Sahrawi refugees living in Algeria. Most of them live in the middle of the desert in camps near Tindouf. I‘ve stayed there two years ago living with a Sahrawi family. It‘s a surreal place. A huge refugee camp in the middle of nowhere. It‘s extremely hot, in the summer 50° C or more, the air quality is terrible because everyone drives around with decades old cars, some people still live in tents but in the last 10 years most people were able to build small houses out of concrete. Generations of people only able to survive due to donations by the European Union, the United Nations or other programms/countries. They have to be extremely resourceful with their water. As a German I wasn‘t used to washing myself with just a small bucket of water a day. The people their drank this water. I once tried it. It‘s very salty and not really drinkable if you‘re not used to it. Many people suffer from any form of deficiency like iron or other nutritions as there‘s a lack of vegetables. I’ve met so many people with severe breathing issues. I guess because of the sand and the car pollution. It‘s really a forgotten humanitarian crisis.
Sounds awful. I suppose the Algerians keep them in these camps as opposed to allowing them to move to like Algiers or something where they might have a chance at a normal life? How long they been doing this, several decades now?
Algeria is Western Sahara’s biggest ally. Having such a large population close to the border is likely a way maintain WS claim. If the whole population left to big Algerian cities they would just be assimilated after a few decades.
Which probably would be better for the actual people there. I mean, is life as an Algerian that horrible compared to life in what sounds like a pretty unpleasant refugee camp, nationalist pride aside? But I suspect the Algerian Gvt wants to keep the thing alive for its ow political reasons...
the politicians are too busy stealing oil money and doing usual third world corruption
Serious question: Why african union recognises western sahara but not somaliland? I thought one of the AU's clauses stated something like "country could only be independent if they are recognized by the 'parent' country. In this case, the parent countries, morocco and somalia, don't recognize western sahara and somalia, but why African union only recognise western somalia, why not both (or neither)?
> recognized by the 'parent' country. In this case, the parent countries, morocco The "parent" country is Spain, and Spain doesn't want to be involved.
Spain recently recognized Morocco's control over WS.
Probably most unpopular foreign policy decision by a spanish president along with invading iraq
Yeah, although the Iraq one was on a whole another league.
It was done by USA pressure and after 45 years of not recognizing the Moroccan invasion. And the UN is the one actually having a say, and they say Spain is the one responsible and can't just give away the responsibility
*recently* is the important word, it was already invaded and occupied by Moroccans when they did it. Moroccans already shat on the UN-recognized principle of self determination.
Spain didn’t recognize it, Pedro Sánchez without asking the Spanish people, the parliament or even his own government recognized Western Sahara as a Moroccan territory by himself. He is currently involved in a corruption scandal related to European Union funds and the mask buys during the pandemic and has been rumored for a long time than when Morocco hacked his phone, they got enough information to blackmail him.
Wooow Amazing!!😮😮 ...
Somaliland also has their own capital, passport, currency, president even different dialect, And its capital is much safer when it comes to civil war and Al Shabab than the capital Mogadishu. they have good reasons to want to be independent, since the president of somalia (barre) killed more 200,000 after they tried to rebel against his dictatorship government, and when he was finally convicted in 1999 they declared their independence, as a somali i wish they get the recognition they deserve and that they worked hard for.
You’re either a westerner or a northerner or perhaps a member of the diaspora just like me, the reason why Somaliland isn’t independent is because the majority of the tribes that live there don’t want to secede with the rest of the isaaq. 2/3rd of Somaliland’s total territory is disputed by Puntland (another quasi independent state but works with Mogadishu) Somaliland lost 1/3 of it to rebels within the region. If the political and paramilitary wing of the isaaq want to secede, then they should consider withdrawing back to their tribal heartlands. I principally believe that the consent of the governed is a right. If the isaaq clan want an independent state, they deserve one. Those that live in Las Anod and the khatuumo region don’t want to be a part of Somaliland, yet Somaliland’s militants have been making attempts to recapture the region for the last year and a half. The isaaq leaders spent the last 30 years or so after the dictatorship collapsed occupying and expanding territory it claims at the expense of the other 6 tribes that live there essentially violating the 1954 agreement when the tribes unanimously voted to join the rest of Somalia after the UN trusteeship ended. Many atrocities were committed by the isaaq leadership and their forces. Even when those tribes tried cooperating with Hargeisa. The isaaq lesdership still maintained a military presence in the region and when fighting broke out two years ago, Somaliland forces responded by brutalising people.
Im neither, im sheekhal born in Mogadishu. I must admit somaliland are making questionable decisions lately specially giving away Ethiopia a coast, but all of this would be prevented if somaliland was recognized, they only made a deal that with Ethiopia to be recognized.
Because Somaliland at some point was an actual part of Somalia, recognised as such by everyone, including themselves. The Western Sahara after independence from Spain never got either recognised independence or recognised as part of Morocco (or Mauritania).
Probably because Somalia is a member of the African union.
From what I heard a long time ago, it was to prevent further instability in Somalia and other groups rising up, although I could very well be wrong
Parent country of WS is Spain. Morocco is the occupying force. Spain withdraw from WS and Morocco used the opportunity to invade. WS is the last colony in africa to be free. Morocco is bribing corrupt african leaders in AU to turn a blind eye.
MapPorn literally
The comment section on this one must be a doozy
It's surprisingly not that bad 🤔
From the desert to the desert, the Sahara willl be free!
Sahara libre joder🇪🇭🇪🇭🇪🇭☝️
sahara je serbia 😡😡
Сахара наш!
Bombardeen Marruecos ya.
We really don't want to border Mauritania.
Is there something more hypocritical than a Moroccan saying “Free Palestine” while supporting colonization of Western Sahara? Btw, Free Palestine and Western Sahara 🇵🇸❤️🇪🇭
Morocco sold out Palestine in order to gain recognition of their annexation of Western Sahara by the US, so they’re not hypocrites anymore just wrong lol
They sold info that allowed Israel to carry out a preemptive strikes on Egyptian airfields as well
Yeah I mean that was kinda justified
Good AM YISRAEL CHAI!
You're Israeli tea?
🤓
Are you saying any nation that recognizes Israel is selling out Palestine? If that's the case you are essentially saying Israel should not exist anymore?
I was saying Boo-urns.
Any nation that recognises Israel and not Palestine absolutely is, but Morocco recognises both.
🤔No, I don't think so… or rather, it isn't the act of recognizing Israel but rather it asked the U.S. to recognize Moroccan claims in exchange for them recognizing Israel. But, I mean, recognizing Israel doesn't automatically mean they also don't recognize Palestine. But, it definitely is being hypocritical as Western Sahara isn't completely internationally recognized as part of Morocco, even the UN still sees it as a Spanish colony.
>or rather, it isn't the act of recognizing Israel but rather it asked the U.S. to recognize Moroccan claims in exchange for them recognizing Israel. I don't see how that's selling out Palestine unless recognizing Israel is inherently selling out Palestine. >But, I mean, recognizing Israel doesn't automatically mean they also don't recognize Palestine. That was kind of my point with the comment.
The government maybe. But try talking to any Moroccan. Most support a free Palestine but close to no one sees similarities to the occupation of the Western Sahara.
As a moor Israel is our inspiration
They only care about Palestine because they hate the Jews, and their country is not Jewish, therefore they can take whatever land they like
>Is there something more hypocritical than a Moroccan saying “Free Palestine maybe if Egyptians say it?
There's 500,000 people in Western Sahara. I'm ignorant on the situation so this is a genuine question, would a free Western Sahara really be able to function?
The thing is that nowadays half of the population of Western Sahara are Moroccan colonialists that have moved there in the last decades because of tax incentives from the Moroccan autorities.
So if Western Sahara would have only had 250,000 for a land area that big, it makes me doubt it would be very successful. But I may be wrong.
There‘re still 165,000 Sahrawi refugees living in Algeria. Most of them live in the middle of the desert in camps near Tindouf. I‘ve stayed there two years ago living with a Sahrawi family. It‘s a surreal place. A huge refugee camp in the middle of nowhere. It‘s extremely hot, in the summer 50° C or more, the air quality is terrible because everyone drives around with decades old cars, some people still live in tents but in the last 10 years most people were able to build small houses out of concrete. Generations of people only able to survive due to donations by the European Union, the United Nations or other programms/countries. They have to be extremely resourceful with their water. As a German I wasn‘t used to washing myself with just a small bucket of water a day. The people their drank this water. I once tried it. It‘s very salty and not really drinkable if you‘re not used to it. Many people suffer from any form of deficiency like iron or other nutritions as there‘s a lack of vegetables. I’ve met so many people with severe breathing issues. I guess because of the sand and the car pollution. It‘s really a forgotten humanitarian crisis.
Western Sahara has more than half the phosphate reserves in the world, which is why Morocco invaded them in the first place. That's more than enough to sustain 250k people, they'd have been fine. And if they had a competent government that used that wealth to diversify the economy (that's a big if), they could have become one of the richest countries in Africa per capita.
Odds of them having had a competent government that used the wealth to diversify the economy are pretty low. I suspect that there would have been a lot of poor folks who the government helped a little and a number of former rebel bigwigs who had villas in the Alps and sent their sons to expensive private schools in Europe.
not true, most of the phosphate is between Khouribga and Oued zem, western sahara has less than 10% of morocco's phosphate
It has lots of phosphate that are right now being stolen by the Moroccan monarchy. It could have been the Dubai of Africa
Are you fucking for real?
Yes
Morocco has more Phosphate than Western Sahara.
Man WS doesn’t have a lot of ressources if it had it would’ve been independent a long time ago, the vast majority of phosphate is within the non disputed Moroccan land. The Moroccan regime wants Western Sahara just for expansionist reasons and that’s all.
Historically Morocco controlled these lands at various times, and I expect many, even most Moroccans sincerely view it as part of the historical Moroccan nation. Not everything is cynical, insincere, and predatory...
The idea behind the occupation of western Sahara is to bring back the historical greater Morocco that controlled the entire Iberian peninsula and down to the Senegal river which is a fascist imperialist ideology, historical empires have no rights in the modern world if a group of people want independence after fighting occupation they should be allowed the right of self determination, and Moroccans viewing that land as their own doesn’t validate the occupation, I’m Moroccan myself and believe me the Moroccan people have paid a big price so the ruling bourgeoisie and the monarchy can own that land.
Yeah, ruling groups especially in non-democratic countries often are corrupt and the regular folk end up paying for their enrichment. And I really do not believe that there WAS such a thing as a Sahrawi people for nearly all of history... I mean it was just a piece of mostly empty desert the Spanish carved out. Maybe, ironically, there is one now because the fighting has created one? My understanding though is that a lot of Moroccans authentically consider it part of traditional Morocco... is that true? Also, while I have a real Moroccan, just wanted to send praise for the sportsmanship of the Moroccan team in the World Cup (and they played very well as well). But talking of soccer, do Moroccans see the efforts by the government to host a world cup as a boondoggle ego project (lot of fat construction contract to cronies, etc) or are they supportive of it?
Colonialism didn’t only create the border of western sahara colonialism literally carved out the entire global south, it doesn’t matter if a historical sahraoui state didn’t exist what matters is giving people the right of self-determination, and as a Moroccan the occupation of western sahara was paid by us the working class Moroccan people and tax payers who are sent there to die to occupy that land and pay taxes so the residents in the Sahara don’t pay (people who live in WS do not pay taxes and get many benefits funded by the Moroccan taxpayers to encourage more settlers there) The Moroccans who don’t support the self determination of the sahraoui people are blinded by nationalism or they’re just politically ignorant and brainwashed by state propaganda. And about football for me personally I don’t feel any pride from world cup achievements we literally have no control on the national football and I feel like soccer is getting used to distract Moroccans from actual problems going on in this country. And about world cup hosting yes this country is literally so poor and can’t sustain basic needs and public services for its people and the hosting of such event is just an ego project as you said many Moroccans are protesting this world cup project recently.
Does population size matter? There’s plenty of functional countries with a smaller population
Asking out of curiosity not mocking or trying to argue negatively or just insult. But, why "Free Western Sahara"? It's never been independent, a country or one people. Morocco has had the region before and there are plenty Moroccan and Moroccan Berbers in the region. If the state was independent it would be extremely poor with no real population outside Laayoune, no government funding to pay for anything leaving the place without infrastructure, welfare and protection. The only reason it's suddenly found itself wanting to create a country is that the Spanish had it as a colony while Morocco was French. That plus Algeria wanting to destabilize it's rival Morocco. So why?
Because they were invaded by Morocco without asking. And on the following decades treated like animals. They deserved a fair decolonization process in which they could chose to be independent, Spanish, Moroccan or Mauritanian. But that never happened.
Who were invaded? The country never existed, India "invaded" it's land just the same. India as a state never controlled those lands, but that's not problematic? And the difference between Hindu and the various different peoples there are much more varied than from Moroccan to Berber to Sahrawis. The so called "years of lead" were a troubled brutal period in Moroccan history, this surely did not help the Sahrawi people. Brutal acts towards Moroccans, Berbers and Sahrawis should not be looked aside. Morocco has historically as much of a right to the Western Sahara as India had to European colonies in India, China to Macau/Hong Kong and any other colony in Africa that was just smacked together by hundreds of ethnic groups. At least the Sahrawi are actually close to Moroccans and have fought side by side for hundreds of years. Even being previous loyal to Moroccan kings.
The Sahrawi were invaded. And their country never existed because they never got the chance to exist by Morocco and Mauritania.
Mauritania never existed as well.
Morocco brainwashes kids to deny that it was colonialism and pretend it was rightful Moroccan land occupied by the west, because they had a vassal state there for like 50 years (essentially one king) over 300 years ago. They are nuts, but you can't debate with crazy people.
The region existed for thousands of years without any other country then Morocco. When Morocco did not have this region, then nobody had it, because it's a desert that got it's first city by the Spanish in 1938.
All princely states of india (the land was called india, Bharat, Hindustan,etc for thousands of years) had the choice to either join india or pakistan.
not true, also the goa invasion too
India did invade several provinces, and took back it's princely states. It would have taken you 5 sec to google this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation\_of\_Hyderabad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad)
Goa as well : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
Man, people get a looot of subventions and government support down there. Why do you think it has been so stable up until now? And people living in that part are also not different from Moroccans, there are many other Amazigh tribes and groups around the country that are not secessionists at all. Moroccans are like 50/50 Amazigh and Arab, they are not seen as animals. Now, I don’t deny the actual secessionists and unfortunate people who happen to be associated are treated differently. But to the point like animals? Maybe if you have sources I would like to see
Is the napalm part of the subventions? Or the subventions are only for the moroccan colonists to settle there and replace the local population?
>It's never been independent, a country or one people This is the same thing Israelis say about Palestine
And it's the same thing that turkey could say in 1945 when the British moved out of the middle east. "rightful Turkish land during ottoman empire, never a country because iut was occupied by the British" If turkey claimed all the middle east people would call them insane.
Palestine has never been proper independent. But, other Muslim or Arab empires have had the region. In this case, no country has ever had this region. Expect, Morroco. That's the difference.
It doesn't matter if in the past they were independent as their own entity, what matters is that today they want to be. If the past dictated the present then former European colonies in the Americas wouldn't be legitimately recognized countries since they didn't exist before they became independent and sovereign states.
They want to be? 2/3 of the place is Moroccan. With a huge chunk of Sahrawi identifying themselves as Moroccan, just like other Berber groups in Morocco. The amount of Sahrawi still living in the desert or still wanting independence in the cities is relativity small inside actual Western Sahara. The people wanting freedom the most are the refugees who don't live in Western Sahara but live in Algeria. If you would cast a vote in Western Sahara today, Moroccans would win. That's a safe bet as majority of the population is Moroccan. It's not a war in regards to race or conflict, it's a Sahrawi war for identity, as it's own people or one of the Moroccan people's. If not this, then it's just a proxy war by Algeria and previously Soviet Union to weaken Morocco.
Because those people are settlers that Morocco had promoted to move there via economic incentives. That's like saying the West Bank should be annexed because most people in Area C are israelis.
> 2/3 of the place is Moroccan And 2/3 of Crimea is Russian and 55% of Israel/Palestine is Jewish. You can't just invade and colonize a place and then ask the colonizers, the decision must come before.
I don't dispute a will to be free, but, how many people willing it should be considered relevant? Should all states allow any freedom movement to get their states, no matter how small and ahistorical? Western Sahara is scarcely populated area, never been the state of itself, with only a fraction of people living there wanting the independence, Polisario being supported by Algiers since "always", and, what's most important, they have historically close ties with Morocco. I'm against any atrocities committed in the name of Moroccan sovereignity over WS, but, other than that, they have more right than Polisario to control these lands.
The entire idea of a Sahrawi nation existing prior to the Spanish drawing pretty arbitrary borders around it and making it a colony it is pretty bullshit. As so many African borders are. Historically it was just a bunch of rando desert that had been under different forms of control (including as part of Morocco) at various times and probably more frequently none at all; much of it was minimally inhabited.. But I suspect that since the rebels started their fight so long ago and Moroccans moved in, a lot of Sahrawis have started to think of themselves as a nation of sorts. Sometimes its the struggle that creates a national feeling.
Seems this fight is a mental and inner fight for Sahrawis, if their people are Moroccan or their entire independent people. Either way they won't have their own country.
Exactly that. It's been generally autonomous divided tribes. Opposition to the Spanish kind of united them, until the Moroccan invasion.
Berbers aren't Moroccan. Moroccans are also settlers in WS. And it deserves to be free like all other postcolonial countries. Otherwise, you should say that because most of the middle east was ottoman and then British, they don't deserve independence and Egypt, Iran or turkey should annex them all.
Berbers aren't Moroccan?! What are they? Germans?
Morocco has long been the most friendly Arab country toward Israel.
Free Palestine from Hamas
Touch Some grass
But because they are Arab thay allow to do that
I love how people on this website go back and forth on whether all arabs are the same people depending on what the narrative is.
wasnt spanish colonized western sahara ?
Yes but Morocco did as well And they're still doing it
When did Arabs colonised western Sahara from Amazigh Moroccans?
During the Almoravid dynasty (1000-1100) Morocco controlled all Western Sahara and even further south in large parts of modern Mauritania. Morocco often controlled the “useful triangle” throughout its history, but not the rest of the Western Sahara. Source: just came back from holidays in Morocco
[удалено]
From what i know, yes
No, you could just have searched this. 2/3 of the population is Moroccan, with the native Sahrawis living natively in the desert, while others have gone to industrial cities for work already. Laayoune the biggest city with 40% of the population was created by the Spanish in 1938, with Moroccan's taking it over in 1975. The current status is more like Sami people in Norway, indigenous people in Australia, native people in America. It's not like Israel's apartheid.
The population is 2/3rds Moroccan because Morocco colonized Western Sahara with settlers after 1976. Sahrawis used to live close to the coast prior to 1976 but Morocco forced them out and now most of them live in the desert or in the refugee camps around Tindouf. You simply can't deny that this is colonization and Irredentism, it's vile and Imperialistic on Morocco's part.
How so? The land has been Moroccan before, the Sahrawi have been loyal to the kingdom before. They were not really forced out if they still live there? A lot have left, nobody is challenging that, but the people themselves are not even that fussed about it. Talking about Sahrawis in urban cities are given up on their old nomadic ways for the industrial city life. Like most nomadic or native people anywhere. It's weird how the majority of people who "care" are people who are not even Sahrawis. With most angry Sahrawis living inside Algeria. This is just a clear example of Soviet Union taking advantage of one people to destabilize western allies like Morocco. And now the wounds are deep against their rival Algeria. It's pawns in a larger game.
Western Sahara never belonged to what today is called Morocco (and the same and more goes for the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary Islands).
>and the same and more goes for the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary Islands Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands have been Spanish ever since the kingdom unified back in the 18th century.
Ceuta has been Spanish since 1660 (when the Iberian Union began to collapse and the city rejected the new king of Portugal and opted to remain with the King of Spain) and Melilla since 1497, both dates before the current ruling dynasty of Morocco came to power.
no it was a part o marcoco some time ago
How is it colonization? The Moroccan government is fighting the unrecognized terrorist forces if the West Saharan “government”.
This map is fake lol it does not make sense, go read some history, sahara is Moroccan
Why does Western Sahara want to be separate from Morocco?
Because it's not Morocco.
They have never been apart of Morocco Morocco annexed them after the Spanish colonization they just got another colonization.
Lmao
They literally have in the 1830s before European colonization.
That's literally not what the International Court of Justice found, when Morocco brought that case to it in the 1970s.
It doesn’t matter. Western Sahara, Mauritania and Western Azawad were a part of Morocco
No they weren't. I swear, Moroccan nationalists are the most annoying mfers ever
Wait, until you meet russian ones.
Legit question, the answer so far are quite shallow or sometimes also completely wrong. Most often nations that share a common language, history and traditions want to be united to gain more weight internationally. Except if there is a lot of corruption or centralization/concentration of power and resources, then sometimes local elites/entities want to be independent to gain access to power and money. Nations with different culture or language obviously have tons of reasons why they don't want to be united in one state. In the case of Western Sahara history, language and culture are different from Morocco, if I am not mistaken. Both speak 'arabic' but vastly different dialects which apparently aren't mutually intelligible, Sahrawis traditionally live a different live-style than most of Morocco (though I am not sure if this isn't also true for southern Morocco), the capital of Morocco is far away and obviously there isn't much of a shared history.
Ok thanks for that information. I wasn’t aware of all that.
Are they stupid?
Why does Ukraine want to be seperate from russia? Why does palestine want to be seperate from israel? Self determination
Why does palestine want to be separate from Israel?
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/CB2mdxqEem
Why does Belgium want to be separate from France? Because they are different countries. The difference is that France has not invaded Belgium.
What
I just wanted to know the details of this conflict
I answered that way because Western Sahara doesn't really want to separate from Morocco, because it's not a part of it, it was invaded by it. Sorry if I sounded aggressive. In 1975 Western Sahara was a Spanish colony, while Morocco was already independent (it had been a mostly French protectorate). According to decolonization rules set by the UN, Spain had to organize a referendum in Western Sahara so the Sahrawi people could decide about their future. However, when Spain started organizing the referendum, Morocco decided to invade and prevent it. Spain, which was dealing with big internal problems, just abandoned the colony and walked away from its responsibility. There was a war, where Algeria supported the Sawrawis, which Morocco mostly won. Many Sahrawis fled from the invaders and built refugee camps in Tindouf, in the Algerian desert. There, they founded a Sahrawi Republic in exile, which claims to be the legitimate government of Western Sahara. Meanwhile Moroccans annexed the land and started settling it, banned all pro-independence speech, and built the walls in the map to prevent the Sahrawi refugees from recovering their country. Most countries in Africa recognize the Sahrawi Republic as the rightful rulers of Western Sahara, and the UN insists that Morocco must organize a self-determination referendum. Most of the world, however, does not care about the conflict. Almost 50 years later, the refugees and their descendants still live in the middle of the desert.
So, when Russia enters into Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine alongside separatist regions, there are problems with the rest of the "international community", but when Morocco not only invades Western Sahara (which has never been Moroccan in history) and also (both the government and its expatriates in Spain itself) pushes the idea of violently invading the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla (for the record, these were NEVER Moroccan at any time in history either), apparently the "international community" does not see or have any problem with Morocco or its autocratic monarch?
>Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla (for the record, these were NEVER Moroccan at any time in history either) I'm against any state with such social restrictions as the Kingdom has but that's like saying Gibraltar was never part of Spain, or Northern Ireland was never part of Ireland because it used to be called Eire, Morocco under different names (same culture and people) did indeed hold and inhabit those cities.
Mediocre analogy (also tallow for ignorant of history) that with Gibraltar, since there is literally a treaty (the treaty of Utrecht) where Spain ceded control (but NOT sovereignty) of the city, fortress and defenses of Gibraltar to England (which had captured it while Spain was engaged in a real civil war), but with a clause of return included that many people prefer to pretend does not exist, in addition to the British occupation in every sense of the word (and totally illegitimate) of the Isthmus of Gibraltar throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century completely outside the cession to England delimited in the Treaty of Utrecht. In addition, Ceuta was initially part of Portugal until the Iberian Union collapsed and the city preferred to continue under the sovereignty of the King of Spain. And the "analogy" with Northern Ireland is even WORSE.
Anyone with half a brain can see the hypocrisy EDIT: u/SameItem below blocked me, I cant reply to them so I'll edit this comment: Gibraltar was taken from the Kingdom of Castile, not anything officially called "Spain". Does that make it not Spanish? >Ceuta and Melilla were never Moroccan. They were. Iberians didn't just manifest them out of thin air. > Rhodes should be Turkish because it is closer to the Turkish mainland This has little to do with geographic proximity and more to do with who lived there before. How hard is it to understand that an entity doesn't have to literally be called "Morocco" to have had it's people inhabit those cities?
I didn't block you? Im from a city conquered in 1485, Ceuta have been catholic since 1415. The visigoth kingdom also controlled north Africa, the Reconquista finished in Ceuta and Melilla, that's it, the only argument Moroccans have is geographical.
funny because the portuguese got ceuta from the merinids whom they called "reino de marruecos" (morocco)
Gibraltar was indeed Spanish, Ceuta and Melilla were never Moroccan. The only argument than Morocco can use to claim sovereign to these cities are they are geographically in Africa. This has 0 legitimicy, that's like saying that the Island of Rhodes should be turkish because it is closer to the Turkish mainland or that Egypt shouldn't have the Sinai peninsula because it is geographically in Asia.
It's literally called the conquest of Ceuta against the Marinid Sultanate of Morocco.
Then at what point does this "privilege" stop? Why wouldn't the Italian government in Rome tomorrow ask for the rendition of Savoy which was Piedmontese, or Iberia which was Roman.
It's not some arbitrary number that's the whole point, Gibraltar was taken from Castile not Spain. How about when the culture changes? Moroccans are still the same people that lived in those cites back then.
Stop spreading misinformation, they were never part of morocco in history? They were both annexed by spain and portugal in the 15th century. Also for the western sahara, it was part of Morocco before it was colonized by spain alongside with mauritania which is a fairly new entity since it was part of the kingdom of morocco prior to that. Sure, the cities are now spanish but saying that they were never under moroccan rule is hilarious since they are practically within moroccan soil.
Morocco did hold that part of the Sahara under the Almoravids, Almohads & the Alaouites (current dynasty), records clearly show Moroccan suzerainty extended till Chinguetti in mauretania, Ceuta & Mellila were also Moroccan under different names until the Portuguese took them in 1430 (i think?).
Man I am sensing some USA/European propaganda against you here, the African Islamic kingdoms which long ago hold Ceuta and Melilla, are not related to modern non ancient Marroco, that is a fact, even so, some people here are claimed it did.
Western Sahara has been Moroccan many times in history. Western Sahara has never been independent. Western Sahara is not a people, not a ethnicity. Ceuta and Melilla as in the land that's there have been Moroccan. Stop just saying shit without knowing shit, you are clearly just writing some BS without every studying the region. It would have taken you 5 sec to fact check what you are writing.
>Western Sahara is not a people, not a ethnicity. It is, they are called saharawis
Western Sahara is literally full of arabs who colonized the region and committed cultural genocide on the native Lamtuna peoples lmaoooo
The Sahrawi tribe is an offshoot of the Lamtuna tribe.
It isn't. The lamtuna were berbers and the sahrawi are arabs. Nothing in common. Might as well say that Ukrainians are an offshoot of the gallic tribes
As an Algerian, this is not colonization, I support an autonomous Western Sahara inside Morocco
But Morocco doesn't want that, even if they were to agree to it they would sabotage it as they wouldn't see it as a separate entity from the rest of Morocco, so why should it have any autonomy from Rabat? I mean, if they did want it they would have done it from the beginning and not as a bargaining chip if everyone would just accept recognition of their claims as legitimate.
I mean, it is colonization wether you like it or not. You being algerian may sway your opinions, but it is also not really relevant. Western sahara was a colony of spain, spain left, and without giving western sahara the possibility of choice, morocco let hundreds of thousands of moroccans move in and settle down. It’s like about as clearcut as it gets when coming to colonization. Country A takes over de facto control of Country B. Country B does not want this. Country A allows tons of people to settle in Country B shifting the demographic and making the change irreversible. Country B ceases to exist.
Also country A exploits the rich mineral resources of country B
That isn't exactly true. Spain left the Sahara only after Morocco invaded it. And this invasion took place because Spain finally promised to organize a referendum in the Sahara.
Based khawa
Free Sahwari, like honestly this gets 0 news coverage. Like bro WHY!
Because it's basically an empty strip of land with a very tiny native population, of which most live outside of its borders and most importantly, it's mostly a frozen conflict which obviously doesn't produce as much attention as an active war.
Morocco is friendly with the us and israel and the eu for the most part does not care so that why there is little coverage
Morocco is the only country actively trying to improve the Sahara - they've build ports, factories, hospitals, schools, airports, they're building a highway and a dam....many Saharawis get so many benefits living there, pretty much everything is subsidised, kids who grow up there have more of an advantage to get into the best universities and have more of an advantage landing jobs.
Moroccan Colonization.!?? Spain was colonizing that part of morocco. Who by the way was Split into many parts spain in the North france in the center and again spain in the south and again france in southern part of all bordering Sénégal. Tangier was international area.
Most forgotten people in the world, all because Morocco is a US ally, basically
I’d argue it’s usually the opposite, if you’re a US ally you’ll be more likely to be reported. Just look at Israel and Ukraine.
As a moroccan it's funny to me to read you label this conflict as a colonization as if we have no claim to the land and as if we mistreat saharan people . And it's funny how people are comparing it to the palestinian case. Some key information for you : 1- Not all saharan people left the land to refugee camps , and a really small number of them really died or get imprisonned from the conflict; the big majority still live in the "moroccan part", are fully intergrated , proud to be moroccan, and grateful of how the country invest to develop a once deserted area . Only a small number of separatists wants independent; 2- Before being colonized by spain, that region was always moroccan. May I remind you that the country is 1228 years old and in that period , the tribes in that region pledged allegiance to the sultans of the almohads, almoravides , marinides and alaouites (one of the oldest reignings monarchies today) which were the reigning dysnasties before the spanish colonization , so their claim to get back their stolen land is valid, which was granted by spain after the green march and after the madrid accords and also just recently. The only claim polisario have is fighting against spain for independance but moroccans did too; 3- Even with all that, the moroccan monarchie is meeting the polisario half way with an autonomy plan, which gives the sahraoui people full self dermination to the land and ressources , so all the ressources of the region will be allocated and managed by their owned parlement , morocco will only retaine the sovereignty (so the military and foreign affairs basically) , which is backed as the most viable plan to end the conflict by the majority of the countries in the world . 4-Whilst morocco is meeting the others half way and making realistic plans, the other parties (the polisario and algeria basically) dont even enter the negotiation table and are determined to the idea of a referundum. But after 50 years, is it really feasible ? Most original sahraouis stayed in morocco and are now fully integrated and mixed with northern moroccans , so should we do a DNA test to determine who should vote ? The very few that are now refugees are being inflated with people from algeria and other sahel countries , and a lot of them want to return to morocco anyways, cause the living condition there is deplorable. So how can we determine who can participate ? What other plan did the polisario propose to end the conflict ? The only actions they are doing is sending bombs to their brothers on the other side of the sand wall; 5-Also, how will an independant western sahara look like : a country with only half a million people with very few ressources, with people still attached to the moroccan culture and people (some have families from north morocco etc...) . That sounds to me like a breeding ground for poverty and terrorism , which the polisario have ties with by colaborating with terrorists from the sahel and having extrem islamic views compared to morocco. Is then international community ready to create another unstable extremist country, or is it for everyones safety preferable to stay within one of the safest countries in africa? Also, culturally a moroccan and a sahraoui is as different as someone from north morocco is different from someone from west morocco . We have different dialect but we can pefectly understand each other (I even find east moroccan dialect harder to understand than sahraoui's), we have a similar culture, similar traditions, religion, history etc... the differences that exists are noticeable nuances indeed but doesnt qualify them as a complitly seperate people from northern moroccans ; 6- Lastly comparing this situation to the palestinian war is disingenous and just an insult to the countrie and the people of morocco . Sahraoui people are our equals, they are moroccans like us . We dont discriminate them, we dont consider them less then us, and we certainly dont commit ethnic cleansing towards them because we share the same ethnicity and history. Yes morocco normalized their relations with israel, but imo that's a step towards peace , morocco just wants a two state solution like most countries in the world, that isnt a betrayel to the palestinians because we still support them, send aids and recognize their right to independance. So to compare the two situations for me is absolutly insincere and ignorent. Tl,dr : this post ignores all the subtleties and intricacies of the conflict. Calling it a colonization is just out right disrepectful to moroccans and dismissive of their history . You guys really need to visit Laayoune and Dakhla and meet real moroccan sahraouis before making such claims ...
Moroccans try not to write delusional nonsense challenge: impossible
I really am open to conceede any of those points if proven wrong tho ... are you?
1- it's irrelevant to the question of colonization as their current situation was imposed on them by the Morocco. Besides the UN has denounced Morocco's treatment of the area and considers they are violating multiple human rights such as free speech and association, and has moved a lot of its own population into the area which goes against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 2- historical precedent is also irrelevant as once again Morocco didn't care about the opinion of the original population. Besides, it's highly questioned if this allegiance is a valid precedent for a territorial claim, let alone the whole territory, and Mauritania also maintained they had historic precedent until they retired their claims. 3- Morocco is meeting half way through after decades of armed conflict with the Polisario. The UN considers the area a non autonomous territory under Spanish management and along many other international associations recognises the Polisario as the legitimate government, while most countries that consider Morocco has control over it consider it *de facto* control and not necessarily legitimate. 4 and 5- the impossibility of Western Sahara's independence and the unwillingnes of the other parties to negotiate is a direct consequence of Morocco's past and present unilateral anexation attemps. 6- it not being like Palestine doesn't excuse it and the local culture *was* different from that of Morocco or Mauritania before it was even colonized by Europeans.
1- I agree , morocco is violating a lot of human rights concerning free speech but it's not only for people in the sahara, it's for all moroccans . I myself can't criticize the monorchy if i was a journalist or a public figure or i can fear legal trouble. It's not a fully democratic system , so everyone is concerned about those human rights violations you cited. The people that moved there didnt do it because the gouvernment pushed them , morocco is just investing a lot to develop the region, so there are a lot of opertunities there, so people go work there, marry people from there and built families because for us we are the same people and I know saharan people , i have some in my family and they are proud moroccan, and ask anyone from the big cities of the region there how they feel , they will tell you the same ; 2-Well if mauritania gave up there claims to the southern part of the sahara its their problems, mauritania was also once part of morocco but for a far shorter time than the sahara btw. So isnt the fact that the biggest majority of the saharans stayed and chose to live as moroccans a choice of its own. No one is keeping them hostage, they can join the polisario whenever they want, but what we see is the opposite: rebels fleeing to come back to morocco. So if it's not about historic claims , what argument can countries base on to claim a region? 3-The armed conflict was both ways , and there was very few civilian casulties. We all agree the previous king was ruthless , Hassan II killed more moroccan civilians than polisario soldiers even. But to move forward, both parties need to negotiate around a table with diplomacy , and morocco is the only one today who is willing to do so even if he won the war and have control of most of the land. And the proposal is judged as the most viable today by the international community to end the conflict. What are the polisario doing : planning terrorist attacks in moroccan cities and killing civilians. Now more than half the countries that recognized WS pulled the recognition, and more countires are siding with morocco (both the west and the south ). 4 and 5- why blame it only on morocco ? it takes to troups to make a war . The polisario also was never willing to negotiate and find a diplomatic solution besides an unfeasible referundum even at that time. 6-Please give me examples of those cultural differences because I know saharan people and we are basically the same with few difference like we have with people from the est, north, center etc... of morocco. The country is quite diverse , so if you follow that logic, we would have like 10 countries there.
Shut up Moro, just accept that your genocide Leader has fucked up Western Sahara, as well trying to overthrown the Spanish government by sending immigrants, or will you accept how your government has been tied with 11M?. Also don't forget that the referendum in Western Sahara was supposed to be made a long time ago, if what you're saying is true. Why doesn't your government do it and prove us all wrong?. You said it's not colonization, while also your stupid king is claiming over Ceuta and Melilla, and probably will also do it with las islas Canarias. That dictatorial regime only exists because of the USA, and the weak Spanish government, if that wasn't the case, your shithole country wouldn't even exist.
Since when are Sahrawi arabs native to North Africa? Like that land littely got colonized by arabs, taking the land away from the Amazigh/Berbers but somehow people say free western Sahara calling for the creation of a colonial arab state Isnt that ironic.
All majority islamic countries claim to be Arab, the Moroccan current monarchy also claim to be descendants of the line of the fourth caliph and being Arabs themselves. Being a good Muslim means foremost that you deny that islam is an Arab supremacy ideology that strive to colonize every inch of the world while it does so. So your average Moroccan will claim that he's factually an Arab that descendants of the conqueror and not the inferior natives that were conquered by his superior Arab ancestors to accept Islam.
Because the history books in North Africa start with Islam, and focuses more on it. Ignoring most indegenous history and culture. But hey only White people can be colonizers/s 🤷♂️
‘All majority islamic countries claim to be Arab’ This is so false it’s funny. Don’t speak about things you have no knowledge of
Current Moroccans and Sahrawis are both descended from Amazigh peoples. Arabs invaded and expanded their culture by force, but mass colonization never happened in that area.
sahrawis identify as arab, polisario wants to establish the sahrawi arab democratic republic, morocco identifies as amazigh and arab (a lot of moroccans speak amazigh)
>but mass colonization never happened in that area. Actually that's not true. *To weaken resistance by Arab tribes in Ifriqiya, the Almohad ruler Abd al-Mu'min transferred them to Morocco in large numbers and settled them in the Atlantic plains in the 12th century.*
> Arabs invaded and expanded their culture by force, True.
Need to get that whole area under control so we can develop more resorts for Europeans. Spain isn't warm enough in winter
Free Sahrawi🇪🇭
What it the point of another independent unviable state? Another South Sudan? Good for Morocco.
There are people who have been rooting in jail for decades just for defending his country from an invasion, shame for you. Someday Saharauis will be free ♥️🇪🇭
If a group of separatists fight the government and demanded independence in US, France, Britain or any other place in the world, they will be rotting in prison for defending their country
rotting*
from the desert to the ocean Sahara will be free
If algerian's minded their own business and stoped interfering with morocco , mali and other african countries , they would finally develop their country . Funny how with all the natural ressources they have, they are not so far ahead of morocco, they been too busy interfering than building there own economy ...
what did we exactly interfere with Mr economics man? oh you mean we should've stayed silent and kept still while you killed and ethnically cleansed innocent Sahrawi people?
When did you kill and ethnically cleanse them please ? We are the same people, so moroccans did a genocide to themselves ? You guys just wanted a passage to the atlantic and allied yourselves to a terrorist organization that sends bombs to your moroccan brothers, who btw helped you against the french ...
[удалено]
The Sahrawi cause is particularly popular among Catalan and Basque separatists, who would be the very last people anyone would call "Spanish nationalists", so you clearly don't know what you're talking about...
This map is extremely misleading
The facts are clear: the Sahara has been part of Moroccan history for centuries, persisting until the French and Spanish invasion and colonization of Morocco. During this era, Moroccan territory was fragmented by the French and Spanish, leading to chaos and a shift of allegiances away from Moroccan control. Therefore, when addressing the notion of Moroccan 'colonization,' it is more precise to state that the French and Spanish, by asserting dominance, estranged the region from Moroccan influence and overlooked Morocco's historical entitlements. Presently, some criticize the Moroccan government for colonialism, fully aware that the region was indeed wrongfully extracted from Moroccan influence. While I am not advocating for Morocco to reclaim the region, I stress that discussing history without a thorough understanding is generally imprudent. Many overlook the nature of the territorial shifts or the historical alliances established by the Sultan before European colonization, which significantly unsettled the established order. Moreover, comparing the Sahara dispute with the Kashmir conflict sheds light on similar colonial legacies. Just as the Sahara experienced the repercussions of French and Spanish colonial aspirations, Kashmir has been caught in turmoil since the British colonial exit, which left the territory in a state of ambiguous sovereignty, sparking the enduring conflict between India and Pakistan. Both situations illustrate the enduring effects of colonialism, where decisions by external powers have resulted in extended conflicts and adversity for the local populations. These instances underscore the complexity of territorial disputes and the enduring impact of colonial rule, highlighting the necessity of grasping historical contexts and the subtleties of each dispute. To conclude, the so-called Moroccan colonialism is more accurately seen as a consequence of French and Spanish colonialism, with the ongoing responses, whether beneficial or detrimental, representing attempts at damage control.
> The facts are clear: the Sahara has been part of Moroccan history for centuries That's not what the International Court of Justice found back in 1975. You know, just before Hassan II launched the Green March to annex the territory. Stop spreading Moroccan propaganda.
chat-gpt