Western Sahara
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Amazigh were the nomads who lived in North Africa in tribal settings, so they didnt have clear borders or nation like we have it now.
Once egypt grew to big and arrogant it is also the Amazigh who cut their trade routes to deeper Africa, which caused the decline and fall of that great empire.
disclaimer: my spouse is trained by master Amazigh storyteller to be one of first female storytellers. they have fascinating stories. A lot of history and tradition encoded in old contexts. (stories about animals and nature mostly)
Amazigh has only been officially recognised since 2001 and their language since 2011 because of these other peoples and our genious science who does not recognise oral stories since it is not written -_- (they had to develop an alphabet to get recognised formally, imagine that :')... 6000+ years old. One of the oldest civilizations in existence, predate ancient Egypt. (early dynasties were Amazigh moving to sedentary life etc.)
Since jews seem to have spring from ancient Egypt you could say somewhere they have Amazigh roots :D but i suppose they will think differently about it.
Everybody starts telling history starting from when they were in charge.
It's impressive to look at satellite images of this. Just a huge sand wall, with hundreds and hundreds of military outposts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Western_Sahara_wall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_sahara_walls_moro...
very much occupation https://www.freewesternsahara.org/history-of-conflict-press
Found it. It's Cody Dahler who is a cheeky commenter on "current events" -- he's worth watching. Couldn't find it on YT so FB it is:
It’s kind of weird that this area that I was only aware of because I like studying maps has popped up a whole bunch in the last few weeks.
https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/byrfqojbz...
They have been living in a limbo for 50 years at this point, but they still feel like they will be able to go back to their land therefore they don't really settle there (they are also in the middle of a desert). Some people gave up on the idea to return to their land (but still feel temporary), others were really frustrated with the fact nothing moved and you could see this frustration at the annual demo in front of the "Muro de la Verguenza", which is the "wall" erected by the Moroccans with landmines and strongholds along the front line.
Should the Canaries be Spanish or African? Catalunya? Basque country? Should Gibraltar be British? Sicily Italian? The list goes on and on. In all these cases you will find people who will hold opposing opinions on this.
Moroccans firmly believe Western Sahara to be historically Moroccan. They also believe that Ceuta and Melilla are Moroccan, despite the fact they've been in Iberian hands for 500 years. They are called the colonized cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the TV and Radio.
The Moroccans I spoke to believe the government looked the other way to show displeasure at Spain because a Spanish minister visited Algeria to buy gas and oil. Obviously with the Iran war, Algeria's revenues and importance has grown.
Morocco and Algeria both view a side gaining influence as a zero-sum: if it's good for Morocco it is bad for Algerian interests and vice versa.
Meanwhile if all the north African countries united and built international infrastructure and cooperated like the UAE did, the entire southern Mediterranean coastal region would have been much better off.
One thing is clear: This cold war is a total waste of potential and a socioeconomic poison.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/disney-criticized-for-film...
Tell me again how the locals are suppressed and resources stolen from on the Falklands? What are we even talking about, grass and sheep?
I think Hawai'i is a better example than California. Hawai'i was a constitutional monarchy, with fully developed law courts etc. California was the fringe of Mexico and the Spanish Empire, and not so well organised. I have heard Puerto Rico described as a colony many times before. But again, I would say there is a better example: American Samoa.
As for the French, like the USA, they are pretty much in denial about colonies. There were people in France who considered Algeria an integral part of France right up until the end.
They seriously do not want people talking about it being a separate country, or occupied or anything like that.
I cut that corner off the map before I went into Morocco, and at more than one checkpoint they looked at it super carefully.
https://www.livescience.com/64677-stone-structures-discovere...
* stronger government control from Morocco than Somalia has had internally
* little indigenous sea-faring populations outside of controllable cities
* sea lanes with less hospitable currents
* something else?And of course there's the background indirect issue where the world's largest navy is stationed half on the same ocean.
Another is that Somalis are extra prone to piracy.
Inside Morocco's Secret War for Western Sahara
https://www.tiktok.com/@mrcodydahler/video/76701977955375710...
Despite basically the whole world recognizing this unjust occupation, neither the Soviets, the US, Europe, nor China cared to do anything and disrupt this crucial aspect of the global fertilizer industry. The only allies the Saharawi had was Algeria.
Surprisingly, the best researched documentary I've seen on this came from a Youtuber called Cogito: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T2ha4a_AuE
EDIT: oh yeah and ofc Kissinger is involved in this :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus#Biological_role
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Phosphor
Phosphor is not renewable/regrowable and recycling is very hard/expensive. In a nutshell: The worlds food completely relies on this molekule.
- most (90%) of Morocco's phosphate mining is done in non-disputed territories (it's mentioned in the article). The most disputed resource is actually fish, and to some degree predicted oil reserves.
- Tribal allegiances to the Moroccan crown date back from way before colonial times. Today, part of the Sahrawi population supports Morocco and another part supports independence.
- There are efforts on both sides to bolster their numbers: Moroccans emigrate to the disputed territories, and Polisario brings in migrants to its refugee camps. That's partly why organising a referendum is almost impossible: no-one agrees on who's allowed to vote.
- Morocco and Algeria (/ the Ottomans before Algeria) have been fighting over access to southwards trade for centuries. Geopolitically, the endgame for Algeria is to encircle Morocco.
- Polisario itself is quite antidemocratic. Only two leaders in 50 years of existence, and lots of corruption.
- Morocco's plan is actually of "advanced autonomy", which would let Sahrawis get their own parliament, amongst other things.
- Today, Sahrawis on the Moroccan controlled areas basically enjoy a welfare state with free transport, no VAT, and many other benefits.
All in all, it's far from the colonial story we'd reflexively apply onto this situation. I'm biased as I am Moroccan. In my opinion, Morocco is already a deeply multi cultural country, and we need a stable political environment to unite.
This conflict keeps the North Africa region one of the least economically integrated areas in the world. It prevents us from building sustainable people power against oligarchic and authoritarian powers, who are at least just as bad on the Algeria/Polisario side as they are on the Moroccan side (Algeria and Polisario are military dictatorship, Morocco is a constitutional monarchy, pick your poison).
I'm not familiar with the situation, so maybe you can help me out. What's the stance of Polisario on Islam and religion in general?
In action, much of their leadership defected to join ISGS, AQIM, JNIM, and other Islamist groups in the Sahel and Maghreb in the 1990s to 2000s that have put Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger under siege. Adnan al-Sahrawi (POLISARIO turned Islamic State) played a major role in that.
It's a side effect of the Algerian Civil War in the 1990s (Military leadership versus moderate Islamists backed by Morocco versus hardcore Islamists backed by Iran - very very horrible civil war that the Maghreb never recovered from and only exacerbated the Libyan Civil War) and Polisario got pulled into it.
Both Morocco and Algeria have had a multi-decade rivalry over accessing the Atlantic Coast as well as becoming the primary hegemon of the Sahel and Maghreb.
The only winning move for Europe is doubling down support for FRONTEX and staying out of it. Otherwise, you get blowback like in France due to returnees the Algerian Civil War creating jihadist cells in the 1990s to 2010s (remember Charlie Hebdo, the Paris Bombings, and Flight 8969?). The Bosnian War had a similar impact as well. Most European jihadist networks trace their origins to veterans from the Algerian and Bosnian Wars.
With neighbors like these...
Morocco OTOH is a Muslim state, with most laws being secular except for family laws, sexual freedoms, and inheritance. Before Western colonial times, the Moroccan royal dynasty built a lot of its soft power on spreading Morocco-based Sufi orders South, and one of the king's titles is "Commander of Believers", which is how caliphs of the original Muslim caliphate called themselves.
People like that he has this role because it helps keep Islam somewhat out of politics, but it cuts both ways: it's harder for religious conservatives to argue against more liberal laws when the institution (called the "Makhzen") proposes them, but it's even harder for individual liberty advocates to argue for a more progressive society when it goes against the Makhzen's plans.
How is this implemented? Do ethnic Sahrawis get special IDs that entitle them to such benefits? Or do they also apply to Moroccan settlers from the north? And considering that Moroccan provincial boundaries don't align with the borders of Spanish West Africa, where does Western Sahara even begin from the Moroccan point of view?
The investment incentives let the local elites coopt the Moroccan government, while the card buys the assent of lower income Sahrawis. It's caused systemic unemployment, despite Sahrawis GDP per capita being 26% over the national average (The PDF is from an NGO so it gives a relatively unbiased view of the situation)
From the Moroccan perspective, Western Sahara is just the Southern provinces. I'm guessing if you're part of a Sahrawi tribe, you get the card. It's less about where you live.
Also, people who relocate from the refugee camps to Morocco get that card + housing.
Also, there's a difference between undemocratic and antidemocratic. Morocco is antidemocratic, while Polisario is undemocratic. Polisario could be a democracy if it allows its leaders to be elected, but Morocco will never be a democracy since you don't elect kings.
We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first.
In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting very long term plans. The current dynasty knows how to balance out the different sources of power within the country (local/tribal, economic, and institutional), and they've done it for several centuries. It helps, in our regions, to have symbols to unite so many people who are so different from each other.
Now, the king and the palace are very rich and benefit from their positions. Institutional insiders rig the game. But elected officials do so the most in Morocco, and elected officials extract from the system in the West as well. It's an oligarchy anyway no matter which side you live on.
But I assume you did not call Algeria a constitutional dictatorship because the Algerian constitution itself isn't really binding. If your constitution doesn't allow for the impeachment of the head of state/government for violations of the constitution, then it is effectively meaningless. That's the difference between a law and a rule, the law is binding while rules aren't.
The US and French constitutions for example clearly outline procedures to impeach the head of the executive, while no such measures exist for the head of the executive in Morocco.
Constitution aren't truths, they're collective lies we agreed upon. In Morocco, authority is a social contract that is bound by customs, not by a blind belief in the moral superiority of law.
An impeachment clause is only necessary when you believe that government is the ultimate authority. If Moroccans believed that, then yes, your argument about hereditary monarchy would make sense.
That's not the case. No-one believes in authority here; we only accept it. So we know that if the king loses legitimacy, a popular revolution will happen. And the king knows that, so he won't push the buttons too much either.
You need an independent constitutional court with actual teeth for any constitution to work.
The reality is we're all subjugated. Moroccans, Sahrawis, or Americans. And we're all minorities in Morocco: Sahrawis, Riffis, Chlouh, Doukkali, Chamá-lo, Fassi, Meknessi, Soussi, and I can keep going. The issues people are saying about the Moroccan government's behaviour in the Sahara are just as true in other places in Morocco. And they're just as bad as what any government who's taken by oligarchs does to its population.
"Economic integration" = more trade = more power together.
I learned quite a lot in just the first 10 seconds of looking at the wiki.
With five of the seven unicorns in Africa and almost one of each three African startups, Nigeria should be a fascinating country to discuss here, but almost never reaches the front page unless the word 'prince' is in the title.