Western Sahara is one of the longest running disputes in the world.
It's also one of the least understood.
While many may think of it as a case of secession - another example of a territory seeking to break away -
nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead, it's better understood as a case of thwarted self-determination.
In this video, I'm going to examine the origins of the Western Sahara dispute.
In doing so, I'll also show how while we often think of decolonization as a process leading to independence,
occasionally that process was hijacked by countries that saw the departure of a colonial power
as the opportunity for a land grab.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to 'Independent Thinking'.
A channel dedicated to international relations, statehood, independence and the origins of countries.
Sitting on the northwest coast of the African continent,
Western Sahara covers around 250,000 square kilometers or roughly a 100,00 square miles.
In terms of size, this makes it a little larger than the United Kingdom.
In another timeline, the territory would today be a full member of the United Nations
following a case of successful decolonization by Spain in the mid 1970s.
Instead, it exists in a strange limbo.
Although an independent state has been declared, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic,
which has been recognized by over 40 countries, and has been a full member of the African Union since 1984,
the country in fact exists in little more than name only.
The government in exile, which is based in neighbouring Algeria, controls a mere third of the territory
- an area of sparsely inhabited desert.
Meanwhile, the remaining two-thirds of the territory is occupied by Morocco.
It claims sovereignty over what it calls its "Southern Provinces"
- even though this claim is not formally recognized by any other country in the world.
So, how did Western Sahara find its path to full independence and sovereignty thwarted
and its territory divided and occupied?
For our purposes, the story begins in 1884,
when Spain seized control of a large swathe of the Atlantic coast of Africa
- a territory that would eventually become known as Spanish Sahara.
However Spain's claim to the territory started to come into question
following its admission into the United Nations, in 1955.
In 1956, the UN Secretary-General wrote to all the new members asking them to state whether they held
any territories that fell under the terms of Article 73 of the UN Charter regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories.
At first, Spain refused to reply.
However, when it eventually did so,
it argued that its territories in Africa didn't fall under the definition of non-self-governing territories.
Instead, it said that they were formal provinces of the Spanish state.
Despite this, in the years that followed, pressure grew on Madrid to accept its colonial role in the territories.
However, matters were complicated by the fact that the territory was now claimed by two neighbouring states.
Lying immediately to the north of Spanish Sahara,
Morocco, which had become independent from France in 1956, laid claim to the region,
arguing that it was part of its historic territory.
Meanwhile, Mauritania, lying immediately to the south and east of the Spanish Sahara,
and which also became independent from France, this time in 1960,
also claimed sovereignty over parts of the territory
This created an obvious tension.
While many undoubtedly expected decolonization as opening the way
for possible independence for Spanish Sahara, Morocco and Mauritania saw things very differently.
They argued that while UN General Assembly Resolution 1514
- the 'Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples' -
envisaged the option of independence for non-self-governing territories,
it also provided for the integration of colonial territories with independent states.
To this end, they supported UN calls for decolonization of Western Sahara
and sought to win round other members to their claims to the territory.
On the 16 December 1965, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2072
urgently requesting the Government of Spain, 'as the administering power to take immediately all necessary
measures for the liberation of the territories of Ifni [otherwise known as Spanish Morocco]
and Spanish Sahara from colonial domination.'
This was followed a year later by General Assembly Resolution 2229, which called for Spain to determine,
'in conformity with the aspirations of the indigenous people of Spanish Sahara,
and in consultation with the governments of Mauritania and Morocco and any other interested party,
the procedures for the holding of a referendum under United Nations auspices with a view to enabling
the indigenous population of the territory to exercise freely its right to self-determination.'
By the early 1970s, Spain's position was increasingly untenable.
Not only was it facing pressure to decolonize from the UN, Morocco and Mauritania,
in addition an indigenous liberation movement - the Polisario Front - was established in Western Sahara
to secure the territory's independence.
In late 1973, UN General Assembly Resolution 2983 called on Spain to withdraw from the territory and,
following consultations with Morocco and Mauritania, for a referendum to be held on the territory's future.
Seeing the direction things were now going, Madrid agreed to hold a vote in 1975
and over the course of the following year the Spanish government held consultations
with the Moroccan and Mauritanian governments.
However, clearly sensing that decolonization could lead to independence, Morocco and Mauritania
now sought to confirm their claim to the territory.
In September 1974, the Moroccan Government proposed that Morocco and Spain jointly submit
the question of the Western Sahara to arbitration of the International Court of Justice.
When Spain refused, Morocco and Mauritania took the matter to the UN General Assembly again.
On 13 December 1974, the General Assembly passed Resolution 3292,
requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.
Specifically, it asked the court two questions:
1. Was Western Sahara at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative,
2. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity.
The proceedings got underway in early 1975.
On 16 October, the Court delivered its opinion.
First of all, the judges decided that the territory could not be regarded as terra nullius.
In accordance with the resolution, the second question was now addressed:
how this related to Morocco and Mauritania.
On this, the Court stated:
'the materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization,
of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes
living in the territory of Western Sahara.
They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land,
which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court,
and the territory of Western Sahara.
However, and crucially, the justices then stated:
'On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it
do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara
and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.
Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature that might affect the application of Resolution 1514
in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination
through the free and genuine expression of the will of the people of the territory.'
The advisory opinion was a turning point in the story
as the Court has essentially decided that neither Morocco nor Mauritania had a prior legal claim
to the territory and that the people should be allowed to decide their own future,
this should have opened the way for a free and fair referendum on the future of the territory
- including the option of independence.
However, Morocco and Mauritania saw things differently.
They decided to ignore the advisory opinion - or at least read it incredibly selectively -
and take matters into their own hands.
The very next day, 17 October 1975, Morocco called on its citizens to mobilize.
Two weeks later, at the start of November, over a third of a million Moroccans gathered near the border
and crossed into Western Sahara, supported by Moroccan troops.
Meanwhile, Spain now decided to abandon the territory.
On 14 November, it signed an agreement - the Madrid Accords - with Morocco and Mauritania that
effectively allowed the administration of Western Sahara to be divided between these two countries.
On 26 February 1976, Spain announced its full withdrawal from Spanish Sahara.
The next day, Polisario announced the creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
However, the country's hopes of full independence had been thwarted.
By this stage, Morocco was in control of the northern two-thirds of the country
and Mauritania the southern third.
For its part, Polisario was forced to set up its government in exile in neighboring Algeria,
which shares a short border with Western Sahara.
Although Mauritania withdrew from Western Sahara just three years later, in 1979,
over four decades later, Morocco still retains effective control over the majority of Western Sahara.
In doing so, it continues to deny the people of Western Sahara a right to freely and fairly
determine their own future - including the option of independence.
We have a tendency to think of decolonization as a process leading to independence.
However, this was not always the case.
Occasionally, countries would see the departure of a colonial power as a chance to take control
of territories that they regarded as rightfully theirs
- thereby denying the inhabitants of their right of self-determination.
Western Sahara is a clear example of this.
In this case, Spain's departure was seen by Morocco and Mauritania as an opportunity to seize the territory,
even though the right of self-determination had been explicitly recognized by the United Nations
and their legal claim to the territory had been rejected by the International Court of Justice.
For this reason, the case of Western Sahara should be understood as a case of denied self-determination.
It also explains why, even to this day, Western Sahara is often called 'Africa's last colony'.
Needless to say, I'll be returning to Western Sahara in future videos,
so don't forget to subscribe and turn on the notification.
In the meantime, here are some other videos that you might find interesting.
And don't forget to 'Like', 'Share' and 'Subscribe'.
It really helps the channel to grow.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.