The current political upheaval being experienced in Northern Africa can be traced to the varying historical relationships that existed in the many Saharan tribes. Before being colonized by Spain in 1974, there was no supra tribal authority linking the many tribes that inhabited the region. However, as Lehtinen (2000) noted, certain Saharan tribes recognized the religiousness of Moroccan dynasties, descendants of the prophet, based on personal loyalty (bei'a) to the Sultan (p.168-169). The now contested Western Saharan territory was made up of a sprawling collection of tribes, formed from a mixture of Arabic, Berber and black African cultures (Lehtinen, 2000, p.169). Because national borders and movements of people were fluid before colonialism, the arbitrary borders, drawn by colonialists, have been in dispute in many areas throughout post-colonial Africa; North Africa included (African Studies Centre, 2011). In analyzing the main reason behind the struggle for the Western Saharan territory, Beardsworth and Kredlow (2005) stressed that Western Sahara's rich mineral deposits of gas, phosphates, uranium and oil may have been a target for both the energy starved Morocco and other European multinational corporations (p. 3-4).
4.1.2 Colonial Era
The modern complexities being experienced in Western Sahara's structure of antagonism can be attributed to the former colony, Spain (Davies, 2009). The following chronological events explain how the former colony came to act as the source of the conflict.
The year 1884 saw Spain, a country that was then lagging in acquiring African colonies , establish its military presence along North African coastlines of Yilla Cisneros (presently Dakhla), Cape Blanc and Cintro. This act of establishing its military presence was later on approved by other colonial powers at the Berlin conference that was held in the succeeding year of 1885. Despite the approval, Spain was not able to colonize the area due the stiff resistance that was posed by the marauding and nomadic tribes which inhabited the Western Sahara region. The resistance of these tribes was able to last long.
However, the resistance for occupation came to an end in the year 1934, when France, occupying Morocco in the north and Mauritania in the south , pacified the region thus in the process enabling Spain to divide her inland parts of her territory into two parts, Sakiet al-Hamra in the north and Rio de Oro in the south (Mace, 1985, p.1).
When French, a country that had played an aiding role for Spain's occupation, came to exit Moroccan colony in 1956, there was renewed resistance by the surrounding tribes (irregular troops from Morocco, Reguibat and Tekna) to the Spanish occupation of the Western Sahara territory. However, Spain was able to firmly protected its 'new' territory and even went ahead to incorporate the congested area as one of its metropolitan provinces.
4.1.3 Formation of the Polisario movement
To fight the Spanish resistance, a group of young Moroccans (continuing with their studies at Mohammed University, Rabat) formed The Polisario Front in 1973. The Polisario was a Spanish abbreviation for Frente Poular de Liberacion de Saguia el Hamray Rio de Oro which meant the "Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro" (Sahara Online, 2011). This movement was to be later involved in the fight for liberation of the Sahrawi people from the invasion of Morocco and Mauritania. According to BIPPI (2011), the political movement was used to woo people towards favoring the struggle for Western Saharan national independence, to explain the situation of the colony on the international level and to accelerate the moral and financial support to the cause
4.1.4 Spain's proposed exit and the UN call for referendum
Having arrived late to colonize the area, Spain government was again the last to leave the African territories. The country's departure came in 1974 when it bowed to United Nation's calls for a referendum in the colony of the Spanish Western Sahara (Mace, 1985, p.2).Earlier on, The UN's involvement in the Western Sahara issue had started in 1963, when the UN had included Western Sahara in the list of countries to which the principle of self-determination was to be applied (BIPPI, 2011). The Polisario movement, aware of the existing opportunity to become self independent after Spain exit, created an armed division known as the Saharawi Popular Liberation Army (Ejercito de Liberacion Popular Sahraoui - ELPS) (Mace, 1985, p.3).
4.1.5 Morocco's resistance
The call for referendum was outwardly rejected by the Moroccan government, led by King Hassan II. The king rallied his government to insist that the Western Sahara belonged to the "Greater Morocco" before it was "illegally" acquired by the Spanish government. As such, they did not want to lose their former land to the proposed new country. Bay, Kitts and Nay (2009) highlighted the stiff resistance to Spain's idea when the averred that the decision by the Spanish government to formally announce plans for internal autonomy of Sahara, were out rightly opposed by the then King Hassan II who protested to Spanish ruler,Franco, and launched a major diplomatic campaign to lobby for the support of the Moroccan claim by sending political leaders of the Istiqlal Party and the USFP, to world capitals. Consequently Algeria, regional rival of Morocco, began for first time to give some low-key help to the Polisario as the government of Houari Boumédiènne committed itself to support the full independence of Western Sahara, in opposition to Moroccan and Mauritanian claims (BIPPI, 2011). The King even went further to report the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September 1974, a proposal which was quickly supported by its ally Mauritania.
The arguments arising from the proposed referendum led to the Unite Nations postponing the proposed referendum in December 1974.
4.1.6 The UN inquiry and its findings
The postponement of the referendum was subsequently followed by a very extensive tour of the region by a UN special mission. The UN team was to inquire on the opinions of the local Sahrawi people concerning their independence. In October 1975, the UN mission published a report of their findings after having carried out extensive tours to The Western Sahara region, Madrid, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania to collect the opinions of these regions' natives and assess the general situation. The inquiry concluded that "the majority of the population within the Spanish Sahara was manifestly in favor of independence" (Mace, 1985). To support its decision, the mission team noted that most of the information and materials availed to it did not trace any relationship of territorial sovereignty between the congested Western Sahara Territory and Mauritanian or Moroccan Kingdom. The mass demonstrations in support for liberation had greeted the arrival of the mission team thus highlighting that majority of the natives were manifestly favoring the idea of Western Sahara's freedom or independence.
4.1.7 Adoption of the UN report by ICJ
The missions report was then adopted by the International Court of Justice during its first meeting at The Hague (October 1975), only one day after its publication. As a result, the ICJ ruled against Morocco's claim by providing clear advisory opinions which stressed that before the Spanish colonization, Western Sahara's one side belonged to 'no man'. The court stressed that the only evidence that existed were the ties of allegiance amongst some, though not all, of tribal chiefs and Mauritanian and Moroccan Kingdom. These ties, according the court constituted no legal evidence to warrant their ownership claims.
The opinions of the ICJ were differently interpreted by the feuding parties, each focusing on the part of the opinion that favored its side. Morocco for instance, through its ruler King Hassan II, had gone on to "trick" its people that ICJ's decision had vindicated his country of any wrong doing in its claims.
4.1.8 Declaration of "Green March"
As a result of the "vindication" claims by King Hassan II, a "Green March" was organized by his government at the end of October, 1975. 350,000 Moroccan nationals volunteered to take part in the proposed demonstration, a demonstration that was to show support to the "vindication" claims. The government aided their transportation to the Spanish colony's borders.
4.1.9 Retreat from borders by the Spanish rulers
The Spanish rulers, aware of the impending unrest and confrontation as a result of the impending "Green March" retreated 14 kilometers inward by withdrawing its troops from its Western Sahara border, a region where the demonstrations were to last for several days. The Spanish government was not willing to engage into any confrontation with the Moroccan go Moroccan government over the issue.
4.1.10 Invasion of the borders by demonstrators
Spanish retreated provided an opportunity for the demonstrators to begin crossing into the "unguarded" borders of the Spanish Sahara by November 6 1974. Mauritania, having witnessed the impacts of the demonstrations, made a formal agreement with Morocco on the side at which it was to join the demonstrations.
4.1.11 Algeria's involvement in the conflict
Having seen Mauritania join in the fight, Algeria became involved when it started to provide military and financial support to the Polisario movement to help it fight for its liberation. This Algerian gesture led to the Moroccan government releasing some of their soldiers to fight for its 'lost' land. Noting the seriousness of the struggle, Algeria provided additional support by offering some of their soldiers to fight alongside the Polisario movement. This annoyed King Hassan who went ahead to threaten Algeria with invasion if it didn't withdraw from the conflict.
4.1.12 Role of Libya in the conflict
Moroccan threats were countered by Libya, which, through its leader, Ghadhaffi, announced that, "any aggression against the Algerian Revolution would be regarded as an aggression against the Libyan Revolution" (BIPPI, 2011). The demonstrations came to reduce only after the Moroccan and Algerian governments prevailed upon the demonstrators to stop their protests several days into their protests. The leaders of the two countries had told them that they had made their point known and thus achieved their objective.
First signs that the protests had achieved their objective were evident when the Spanish government had forcefully evacuated their nationals to their homeland, Spain.
4.1.13 Signing of Madrid Accord
Five days (November 11, 1975) after the demonstrations witnessed the first major achievement of the protests. Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania were to successfully sign the Madrid Accord in which Spain agreed to cede the Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania (Mace, 1985, p.2). Spain's shift of position in support the two countries had caused a lot of surprises to too many people and governments who were closely monitoring the unfolding events. A sinister motive was seen in the signing of the agreement when Spain retained significant fishing and mineral rights and Morocco agreed to freeze her claims to the Spanish ports of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Morocco (Mace, 1985, p.2). The Madrid retreat had given Morocco two thirds of the northern territory while Algeria had acquired the remaining southern third (BIPPI, 2011).
4.1.14 The Rebellion
The pro-independence Polisario Front, backed by Algeria, opposed the secret deal. It launched an armed liberation struggle and declared the independent Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) immediately after the Spanish quickly withdrew their rulers from the territory (Global Plicy Forum, 2011). The Polisario movement had quickly moved to replace the seats left by the Spanish rulers in the then Western Sahara National Assembly. They did this by forming pro-Polisario Provisional Saharawi National Council that was made up by 40 members in April 1975 (Davies, 2009).
4.1.15 Occupation by Moroccan and Mauritanian governments
The quick formal withdrawal by the Spanish rulers on 27th February 1975 saw the immediate deployment of the armed forces of Morocco and Mauritania in Western Sahara's key towns (Donald, 1993). The invasion of the Western Sahara by these two foreign armies was met with stiff resistance by the local Sahrawi people. The region's Polisario movement took up arms and with help of Algeria built up a resistant army. As a result, the movement was able to record notable successes principally against Mauritania, a very poor country (per capita GNP of $480p.a, over 50% unemployment rate and 17% illiteracy) where the war was deeply unpopular (Donald, 1993).
4.1.16 Mauritania's withdrawal
Following concerted hit and run attacks on Mauritanian positions by the Polisario's guerrilla army (including several attacks on the capital Nouakchott), and the deposition of the then President Ould Daddah in a military coup in 1978, Mauritania and Polisario signed the Algiers Agreement in 1979 in which Mauritania renounced its claims to the Western Sahara (Mace, 1985, p.2).
The withdrawal of Mauritania led to Morocco taking over the remaining third and increasing its military presence in the region to counter the stiff resistance from the Polisario and Algerian armies. However, as the war escalated, many native Sahrawi's had packed their belongings and left the affected regions of Oum Dreiga, Tifariti, Mahbès, Guelta Zemmour into the established refugee camp at Tindouf, in Algeria, one of their closest allies (BIPPI, 2011). Having secured the safety of their refugees in Algeria (though in an inhospitable desert region), the Polisario guerrillas went on to mount increased military attacks on Moroccan established military bases.
4.1.17 US assistance to Moroccan army
Despite the usual United Nations pronouncements about the right of self determination, Morocco was able to occupy much of the country with the covert, and sometimes overt, support of the western powers, especially the United States (Zunes & Mundy, 2010). At an estimated cost of $3m per day (in 1993), Morocco maintained an occupying army of 120,000 soldiers behind the "wall of sand", three meters high and 2,300km in length, protected by minefields and US supplied listening devices (Donald, 1993). Morocco went on to cement its presence in the country when it successively developed military sandbank walls , surveillance equipments and mines of barbed wire stretching from southern Morocco to the Atlantic coast in the years 1984 and 1985.
4.1.18 The UN "Ceasefire"
The war between Polisario and Morocco continued for long periods, claiming casualties on both sides of fighting armies. The year 1991 saw the intervention of the United Nations into the conflict. The UN brokered a "ceasefire" that outlined a settlement, calling for a referendum on independence (Global Policy Forum, 2011). The UN also established the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara (MUNURSO), to monitor and implement the ceasefire plan (Mace, 1985, p.3).
4.1.19 Voter identification issues
Though the two feuding groups had expressed willingness to respect the UN decision, the proposed referendum did not finally take place as issues of voter identification came to affect it. This was after Morocco insisted that some of its nationals be allowed to vote in the referendum (Global Policy Forum, 2011).
The UN came to reaffirm its 1991 proposal for a referendum when it passed a resolution that stopped short in coercing Morocco into granting independence to Western Sahara. This was after the Sahrawi people hold protests in demand for their independence in 2005. To date, the proposed referendum hasn't been held, and the conflict still goes on
4.2 Moroccan perspective of the conflict
The Western Saharan conflict has many parties hold or express different perspectives. Different perspectives have been expressed by the refugees, the UN, Morocco, Algeria, the Polisario, The Spanish and the US amongst others. The following is the perspective of the main player in the conflict, Morocco:
According to Bissell and Radu (1984), Morocco claims a traditional right of possession that antedates the colonial era (p.173). Burgis (2009) referred to this right a policy of "Greater Morocco" after its independence in 1956. In insisting that Western Sahara was part of its territorial land, Morocco was rejecting the "geographical absurdities" inflicted by the Europeans in Africa (Mace, 1985, p.5).
Morocco justified its 'Greater Morocco" perspective by insisting that the many tribes that existed in Western Sahara had initially offered their allegiance to its Sultan during the early 18th and 19th centuries-an evidence commonly referred to as the pre-colonial sovereignty. The country thus saw no reason why the colonial rulers could come and subdivide its land and furthermore insist on the establishment of a central form of government which was inapplicable in its context. Burgis (2009) stressed that the "Greater Morocco" ideological perspective not only justified the inclusion of Western Sahara into Morocco, but also laid claim to large parts of Algeria and the whole of Mauritania. This was evidenced by the 1963 conflict between Algeria and Morocco.
In addition, Morocco claimed that its Sultan had made 'formal' arrangements with the European powers when he signed away the country's independence in the Fez Treaty of 1912. This led to the country becoming a French territory. In the documents availed as evidence, England, France and Germany and the Sultan had signed the agreement which had recognized the southern limit of Morocco at Boujdour; including the northern sector of Western Sahara (Mace, 1985, p.7).
As a result of the above perspectives, Morocco has been aiding the Saharawi refugees in escaping the supposedly prison-like camps in Algeria (Varias, 2011). The country in defending its claim for Western Sahara has been stating that many refugees continued to flee the Polisario camps, thus demonstrating their resistance against the movement. Their continued escape demonstrated that they wanted to come back to their original homeland, Morocco and not the SADR. Morocco even strengthened their claim by insisting that the Polisarios had established the refugee camp to feed the refugees with divisive propaganda, a perspective which was vehemently denied by the Polisario movement (Jensen, 2000, p.36).
