Conflicting International Policies and the Western Sahara Stalemate

Conflicting International Policies and the Western Sahara Stalemate

Hakim Darbouche and Yahia H. Zoubir argue that the Western Sahara conflict persists because international law and the geopolitical interests of the major powers pull in opposite directions. UN resolutions consistently support the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination through a referendum that includes independence, yet Morocco has occupied the territory since 1975 with few consequences, mainly because of tacit backing from France, the United States and at times Spain in the Security Council.

The authors trace the failed UN efforts from the 1988 Settlement Plan to the Baker Plans of 2001 and 2003, showing that Morocco rejected every option that included independence. They see Morocco’s 2007 autonomy proposal as a recycled plan that seeks international recognition of its control without a genuine referendum, and they judge Polisario’s counter-proposal more consistent with international law. They expected the UN-led negotiations that began in 2007 to preserve the status quo, while a new generation of Sahrawi nationalists and regional security concerns added pressure.

They set out two possible tracks: a pragmatic one that would end MINURSO’s mandate and rely on direct talks mediated by the United States, and a legal one that would revive the 2003 Baker Plan with guarantees for both Polisario and Morocco.

Full article

Read the full article on Taylor & Francis Online

Support our work