THE LESSON FROM TURKEY & ARMENIA
Hassan Masiky
MoroccoBoard.com
April 30 2009
Let’s hope politicians in Morocco and Algeria were following the news
coming out of Ankara and Yerevan: Muslim Turkey and Christian Armenia
have agreed to normalize their bilateral ties, putting decades of
animosity behind them. It is a historical moment for both countries
and a message to other nations involved in conflicts to overcome
differences for the benefits of the advancement of their citizens. The
significant of this event is magnified by the seriousness of the
Armenian charge of "Genocide" against Turkey in the mass killings of
thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915.
While Armenia and its neighbor Turkey were working out a "road map"
to normalize their relationship, Algeria and its neighbor Morocco were
locked, again, in a war of words over the Western Sahara conflict. The
"newly elected" President Bouteflika of Algeria used his "inaugural
Speech" to compare the Moroccan presence in the Western Sahara to
the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories belittling the
Palestinian cause and showing a great intransigence toward the United
Nations efforts to resolve the Sahara conflict. Such "Brezhnev era’s
Soviet Union" like statements from the Algerian President reinforce
the existence sentiment that the so-called western Sahara conflict
is an Algerian-Moroccan dispute that can only be resolved in direct
bi-lateral negotiation between Rabat and Algiers.
Historically, Morocco under the late King Hassan II approached
the conflict over the Sahara as an argument with the late Algerian
President Boumedienne. However, as the disastrous Moroccan diplomacy
of the seventies and eighties stumbled and the Algerian position in
support of the Algeria created Polisario separatist movement gained
momentum, Morocco was compelled to deal with the Polisario in equal
terms as an adversary. Presently, this argument does not stand. Both
Morocco and Algeria are going through different historical stages
that are bound to affect their policies in dealing with the Sahara
Conflict. Whereas the Moroccan diplomacy, with all its lapses,
has joined the twenty first century, the Algerian Foreign Ministry
is stuck in the twilight zone, and will stay that way for few years
to come with the return of Bouteflika for a third term. On the issue
of the Western Sahara, Morocco’s position has evolved with Rabat’s
local autonomy for the population of the Sahara while Algeria’s
stagnated. Accordingly, it is time to repaint this conflict with its
true color: a border dispute between Morocco and Algeria.
As long as the Western Sahara conflict is not framed as a grouping of
the Moroccan-Algerian disputes over the Sahara, Tindouf and Beshar,
all attempts by the United Nations to resolve the conflict will
flounder. Actually, Algerian officials are first to admit that the
bitter memory of the 1963 Sands War with Morocco is the driving force
behind their government rigid anti-Morocco position disputing the
legitimacy of Rabat presence in the Western Sahara. Consequently,
resolving all and any leftover issues from this war hold the key to
resolving the current crisis, as long as the resolution is through
direct negotiations between the two Belligerents.
The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
(MINURSO) has been waist of money. Similarly, the missions of
successive UN envoys to the region were complete failure as most
of the UN diplomats persisted in including the Polisario movement
as an independent entity outside the influence of Algerian Military
influence. It is naïve and unrealistic to believe that the Polisario
leadership make independent decisions without direction from Algiers.
It is becoming ever evident that the only way to resolve this long
simmering conflict is to remove the Polisario element out of the
equation, demark the Moroccan Algerian borders once for all, and
address Algeria’s geographical concerns in terms of access to the
Atlantic Ocean.
Rabat, unheeded, appeals to improve relations with Algiers are
the first step to resolve all outstanding problems between the two
countries. Algerians and Moroccans do not have to open borders but
must settle the dispute over the Sahara and their borders as did
Armenia and Turkey. With its obstinacy to address the underlining
sources of its dispute with Morocco, the Algerian diplomacy will be
eventually be tired by the international community as an out-of-date
institution poorly adapted to the new realities in the region and
overly influenced by bunch of political dinosaurs.
King Mohamed VI has a vision for prosperous Morocco and Algeria
where economy is more important than who controls which oasis in
a desalt corner of the Sahara. With 35% unemployment, the Algerian
government should be drafting plans to bring out their country out
of the economical abyss instead of redirecting domestic opinion wrath
against neighboring countries.
The Armenian and Turkish leaders are visionaries who recognize the
importance of prosperity versus demagogy and historical events that
can be settled in time. I hope the leadership in Al-Moradia wakes up
from its deep sleep and comes to terms with the demands of today’s
political realities. As Turks and Armenians dream of joining the
European Union, Moroccans and Algerians continue to live a "Kafkasian"
nightmare exasperated with a Bouteflika part III act.