"Seized of the Matter": The UN and the Western Sahara Dispute

“Seized of the Matter”: The UN and the Western Sahara Dispute

Jacob Mundy argues that the UN has failed to end the Western Sahara conflict because it keeps pursuing outcomes in which one side wins everything. He follows the UN’s path from the 1991 Settlement Plan, which relied on a referendum among the territory’s indigenous people, through the voter identification process, in which MINURSO was flooded with appeals sponsored by Morocco, to Kofi Annan’s decision in 2000 to drop the plan in favour of James Baker’s autonomy proposals.

Mundy points out that both Baker plans still ended in a final-status referendum after four or five years, this time with Moroccan settlers allowed to vote, which would again create a winner and a loser. In the meantime Morocco would keep control of foreign affairs, defence and currency. He discusses Western powers’ fear of an embarrassing referendum result, Algeria’s shifting position as it drew closer to the United States on oil and counter-terrorism, and Polisario’s acceptance of the Baker Plan in 2003.

He concludes that because both sides still believe they can win, the conflict will go on. He warns that a referendum held on these terms could lead to violence like that in East Timor, and that the stalemate suits Morocco and the Western powers while leaving the refugees in limbo.

Full article

Read the full article on Project MUSE

Support our work