This comment was published in al-Hayat on 28/11/2010
There is a crisis between Morocco and the European Parliament, but there is an even sharper one between Rabat and the Spanish People’s opposition Party. While Madrid, led by Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, has paved the way for granting Morocco an advantageous position in its negotiations with the European Union, his opponents continue to push in a different direction.
But there is nothing new here. Nearly seven years ago, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar asked that economic sanctions be imposed against Morocco in the aftermath of the Perejil Island crisis.
At the time, the Europeans did not meet Aznar’s demands. But now, his supporters at the European Parliament, which is dominated by conservatives, have managed to pass a resolution over the recent El-Oyoun incident, holding that the United Nations is the party best suited to carry out an independent international investigation over the incidents. The Moroccans, meanwhile, said that the resolution contains many distortions.
What the People’s Party failed to accomplish at the level of the European Union in what regards the Perejil Island crisis, when the American administration intervened in the crisis to restore calm on the uninhabited island, the People’s Party managed to achieve this time in the European Parliament. This explains the Moroccan anger, to the degree that a mass rally was organized against the Spanish conservatives. With this, perhaps Rabat has chosen to respond in a way the Europeans would understand, namely by protesting this injustice in the street.
The Moroccans have not been very happy with this situation. In the past, they wagered that when Spain and Portugal join the European Common Market, this would open the door wide for their agricultural products. They believed that giving time to the emerging democracy in Spain would help them find a foothold in Europe. The late King Hassan II had assumed that the time will indeed come when his country would become a full member of the European Union, while opposition voices called on him to improve his country’s record in human rights, press freedoms, and the compatibility of Moroccan laws with the European system.
During the rule of his successor, King Mohammed VI, Morocco has taken the correct path. It has opened the prisons and allowed Moroccans and foreigners to access the records of the country’s secret history of serious violations in what regards this complicated issue. Morocco thus seemed to be closer to containing European disgruntlement, were it not for the thorny issue of the Sahara conflict, which has blocked several moves towards rapprochement. To end the conflict, Morocco has called for a democratic approach under the broad title of autonomy. However, this approach has had repercussions. Sometimes this involved violence, such as when Moroccan forces moved to disperse the Saharan demonstrations that were held to raise social demands, but ended up facing knives and swords, and a number of these forces were subsequently ruthlessly butchered.
However, this did not prevent criticisms from being made by the European Parliament.
There were several political, cultural and ideological reasons that led to the resolution: The conservative right-wing influence in the European Parliament was too great that it stifled the cries of the Moroccan security personnel as they were slaughtered. It seems that the muddled account of what happened dominated all other aspects of the situation. Human rights, and not national commitments, are what triumphed.
It does not matter that some groups in the European Parliament were deceived. More importantly, human rights, which are an indivisible issue, require an encouraging climate, one that involves an understanding of rights, and their connection to duties.
Morocco’s problem in the Sahara therefore, is not a debate over the degree to which commitments related to these values have been respected. Instead, it involves the degree to which the Sahara is viable as a model in this regard. Who can convince thousands of Saharans returning from the Tindouf camps that their return does not necessarily mean that there will be a welfare state that will meet all of these demands, such as for housing and employment? Who can cement the values of respect for human rights over the rubble of a regional struggle whose repercussions continue to animate various political developments?
In simple terms, the issue requires adopting an objective vision with regard to what happened in the past, and what is taking place today. It was striking to see a demonstration of hundreds of thousands of Moroccans, to protest the resolution by the European Parliament and the Spanish People’s Party, led by activists and MPs of Saharan origin.
There is a crisis between Morocco and the European Parliament, but there is an even sharper one between Rabat and the Spanish People’s opposition Party. While Madrid, led by Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, has paved the way for granting Morocco an advantageous position in its negotiations with the European Union, his opponents continue to push in a different direction.
But there is nothing new here. Nearly seven years ago, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar asked that economic sanctions be imposed against Morocco in the aftermath of the Perejil Island crisis.
At the time, the Europeans did not meet Aznar’s demands. But now, his supporters at the European Parliament, which is dominated by conservatives, have managed to pass a resolution over the recent El-Oyoun incident, holding that the United Nations is the party best suited to carry out an independent international investigation over the incidents. The Moroccans, meanwhile, said that the resolution contains many distortions.
What the People’s Party failed to accomplish at the level of the European Union in what regards the Perejil Island crisis, when the American administration intervened in the crisis to restore calm on the uninhabited island, the People’s Party managed to achieve this time in the European Parliament. This explains the Moroccan anger, to the degree that a mass rally was organized against the Spanish conservatives. With this, perhaps Rabat has chosen to respond in a way the Europeans would understand, namely by protesting this injustice in the street.
The Moroccans have not been very happy with this situation. In the past, they wagered that when Spain and Portugal join the European Common Market, this would open the door wide for their agricultural products. They believed that giving time to the emerging democracy in Spain would help them find a foothold in Europe. The late King Hassan II had assumed that the time will indeed come when his country would become a full member of the European Union, while opposition voices called on him to improve his country’s record in human rights, press freedoms, and the compatibility of Moroccan laws with the European system.
During the rule of his successor, King Mohammed VI, Morocco has taken the correct path. It has opened the prisons and allowed Moroccans and foreigners to access the records of the country’s secret history of serious violations in what regards this complicated issue. Morocco thus seemed to be closer to containing European disgruntlement, were it not for the thorny issue of the Sahara conflict, which has blocked several moves towards rapprochement. To end the conflict, Morocco has called for a democratic approach under the broad title of autonomy. However, this approach has had repercussions. Sometimes this involved violence, such as when Moroccan forces moved to disperse the Saharan demonstrations that were held to raise social demands, but ended up facing knives and swords, and a number of these forces were subsequently ruthlessly butchered.
However, this did not prevent criticisms from being made by the European Parliament.
There were several political, cultural and ideological reasons that led to the resolution: The conservative right-wing influence in the European Parliament was too great that it stifled the cries of the Moroccan security personnel as they were slaughtered. It seems that the muddled account of what happened dominated all other aspects of the situation. Human rights, and not national commitments, are what triumphed.
It does not matter that some groups in the European Parliament were deceived. More importantly, human rights, which are an indivisible issue, require an encouraging climate, one that involves an understanding of rights, and their connection to duties.
Morocco’s problem in the Sahara therefore, is not a debate over the degree to which commitments related to these values have been respected. Instead, it involves the degree to which the Sahara is viable as a model in this regard. Who can convince thousands of Saharans returning from the Tindouf camps that their return does not necessarily mean that there will be a welfare state that will meet all of these demands, such as for housing and employment? Who can cement the values of respect for human rights over the rubble of a regional struggle whose repercussions continue to animate various political developments?
In simple terms, the issue requires adopting an objective vision with regard to what happened in the past, and what is taking place today. It was striking to see a demonstration of hundreds of thousands of Moroccans, to protest the resolution by the European Parliament and the Spanish People’s Party, led by activists and MPs of Saharan origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment