Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:17, 1 October 2005

Featured on Template:March 2 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Neighbouring countries are Mauritania to the southwest Looks like the border is with Western Sahara, not with Morocco. Shouldn't we delete this reference in the geographic boundaries? Looks like a political challenge rather than geography... Wetman 14:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

definitly No ! if this subject is noticed, I am afraid this will lead to an edit war, moroccans are really very very touchy about the Western Sahara subject a war was held here in morocco,africa

Wetman, Western Sahara is disputed territory. We should not ommit this fact from the article Morocco and Morocco's boundaries, because some users are more outspoken than others. Facts and the principles do matter! Gidonb 23:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, once the Western Sahara is declared a sovereign country, you can ommit that. Regards Svest 21:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think the map should show Western Sahara as at least marked in some way. We can not ignroe the Moroccan viewpoint that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, even if we disagree with it. --24.147.128.141 21:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A scheduled U.N. referendum on the Western Sahara issue has not yet taken place. Up until then, Western Sahara is effectively under Moroccan administration, and this fact should be acknowledged in the map in some way. --213.146.115.42 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Why on the map? It's discussed at length in the article and in others, also. Plus, Morocco does not administer the entirety of the territory. Justin (koavf) 22:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Administring 1/12 or 1/1 is not a basis. Check and tell me the difference between the maps for Israel and State of Palestine in Misplaced Pages! The basis are what I wrote below instead. Regards Svest 21:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

The map ought to mark Western Sahara differently than the rest of Africa (and Morocco), exactly because it is disputed territory. The current map material is offending to Moroccans because it unilaterally endorses Polisario's opinion, and ought to be at least commented accordingly. Unless this happens, the neutrality of this article should be contested. --213.146.115.42 16:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am moroccan citizen who lived between 1980 and 2002 in Sahraoui provinces, most of the time in Laayoune. 213.146.115.42 is right: Our maps include the Sahara, and the roads and infrastructure were all built by our people. Our national integrity is very important to us. We know and accept that it is disputed though. Thank you for being precise here. No pb. with saying it is disputed territory, just don't be one-sided. Thank you and salaam alaikum. Samir Abdelhamid.

Samir, thank you for sharing your knowledge. We're all trying to make this article as accurate as we can. --213.146.115.42 00:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I respect everybody's point. I am a Moroccan citizen and of course support my country's claim. However, this is an encyclopedia and as long as the problem of the Western Sahara is not solved, we cannot claim our rights to have a map that includes it in an encyclopedia. I'll be the first one to include it the day it will be confirmed. The point is not the map but it is rather the way we present our issue. A map is just a map! This article is the main ground; if there are any facts to provide, it would be helpful. We know how the issue of the Sahra maghrebia is touching every Moroccan but this is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia cannot show a map that is disputed just because we represent ourselves as Moroccans. Otherwise, we will lose credibility of Misplaced Pages. Cheers and respect -- Svest 20:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I support this point of view, the only way to be NPOV here is to present all the points of view regarding this issue, otherwise the edit war will never end. For the map we need to take into account the fact that moroccans consider it a moroccan territory, while the rest of the world generally consider it a diputed territory.--Khalid hassani 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit to this and Mauritania

===>Issue: A user from an anonymous ip (213.146.115.42), has been editing out references to borders with Western Sahara using this justification: "Western Sahara is not an internationally recognized country." Granted. But, if a country, such as Suriname, borders a dependency (French Guiana), that border is mentioned in the description of the geography. Furthermore, deleting references to Western Sahara makes the maps unintelligible. The issue is discussed at length in several articles, and I trust that readers are intelligent enough to digest this information. Justin (koavf) 22:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a real argument. French Guiana is under effective administration of France, while Western Sahara is not under effective administration by the RASD. Mentioning Western Sahara as a state is factually incorrect (after all: this is a political, not a geographical or topological map). As soon as the U.N. referendum has taken place, and the result turns out to be a new state, then (and only then) will the formulation be correct. Anyway: as a compromise, let's keep references to Western Sahara, and add a sentence about the disputed character of Morocco's southern (and Mauretania's northern) border. Effectively, both countries ARE sharing a common administrative border. --213.146.115.42 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>On the contrary: It is a "real" argument. I was objecting to the justification used to delete Western Sahara (it isn't a state), and how that justification is arbitrary (which it is). To mention that Morocco borders the SADR is not POV, and is in fact the policy of the United States State Department, which does not recognize the SADR. To say that Western Sahara is a part of Morocco is POV. I never mentioned Western Sahara as a state, and the example that I gave (French Guiana) shows that it is not necessary for a state to border another state: it can border a separate entity entirely. I would still argue that Mauritania is not sharing a common administrative border with Morocco, as the part of Western Sahara administered by the SADR is south of the berm, and conseqeuntly directly north of Mauritania, but I think your compromise is generally fair and useful to readers. Justin (koavf) 18:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Justin. Most Moroccans can live with that too. Thank you for clarifying this. --213.146.115.42 20:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the legend to the CIA-provided map: a writer modified the legend, stating that this map reflects the neutral policy of the CIA w.r.t. the sovereignty of Western Sahara. I beg to disagree on two points: first of all, Morocco doesn't consider this map as neutral. It is a possible POV, but to call it neutral is stretching the limits beyond correctness. Secondly, the CIA doesn't make or have a position on foreign relations. This is not their prerogative. The CIA just reflects the official position of the United States. I strongly think that it is important not to hide from readers the fact, that Morocco uses a map both in schools and official documents that differs from the provided one. We may agree or disagree with them on this particular issue, but it is an important piece of information to understand the local situation, so it should not have been removed. Thanks. --213.146.115.42 20:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>True. You are, of course, right. The CIA does not establish policy like this - it is the State Department. I'll edit the map description accordingly. Justin (koavf) 21:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The US Dept. of State's background note on Morocco defines the official position of the United States: "While recognizing Morocco's administrative control of Western Sahara, the United States has not endorsed Morocco's claim of sovereignty." --213.146.115.42 01:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I lived in Morocco's Rabat and Salé between 1973 and 1986, and am keeping very close ties to many people who live in that country up until today. That's the reason I'm quite familiar with Morocco and their specific view on the Western Sahara issue. I've witnessed the Green March and seen the moroccan version of the map being used in schools without second thoughts. To moroccans, it is crystal clear that Western Sahara is theirs and they are very confident to win the referendum. That's why it's important to me to be precise here. Thank you again for helping keeping us all as neutral, yet informative as possible. --213.146.115.42 21:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

This articles has over 30 external links! isn't that madness? Two or three should be enough. We are not google after all! Waerth 16:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is more organized and selective than Google.--Patrick 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still more than 30 doesn't really serve a purpose does it? Waerth 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some can be removed, after studying which are the least useful.--Patrick 21:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I contest the neutrality of the map/article

Dear people,

When looking at the map in the article we see Morocco without the sahara. This is however not right. You may be pro polisario ou wish the sahara to be independent but this is an encyclopedia that MUST inform in all neutral and objective possible way and not your personal website.

The Sahara issue is not clarified yet and this is the situation that should be shown in the map. Many media use for example a map tha shows Morocco and the sahra separated with a dotted line or a colour with different temperatures. This is what I would suggest as a compromise that is mostly close to the facts.

Contirubtions above witness that the Sahara is under moroccan administration and moroccan people deeply believe in the Sahara as part of their country. etc.

Your map is definitly NOT NEUTRAL. I do contest this herwith and ask for an other solution. Thanks (unsigned comment by Wikima)

===>There are three maps:

The first map, due to design issues, does not actually feature borders, but rather negative space between states and dependencies, so a dashed line would not work. It also reflects the internationally-recognized borders of the country. See similar situations with Israel and Taiwan (that is, the Republic of China). Since the annexation of Western Sahara is not recognized by any country, this map shows Western Sahara as a separate entity.

The second map is modified from the CIA, and represents the United States' position of neutrality on the subject. A discussion about this very issue arose earlier on this talk page, and I modified the caption accordingly after reaching consensus. In this map, the border is a continuous line, but Western Sahara's font is not the same as other entities recognized as states.

The final map is a satellite photo which shows the landscape of Morocco. It does not have borders on it, as it is not a political map, and contains portions of several political entities.

The facts are that Western Sahara is recognized as a state by several states, Morocco's annexation is not recognized by any state, Morocco does not administer the entire territory, the article discusses the dispute and attempts a neutral position on them, and Sahrawis feel very strongly about their independence.

Do you have objections other than the ones raised in the conversation above? Justin (koavf) 15:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

With respect to both comments, I must say that the article is neutral whereas the map is not. Many things you stated Koavf are true but that doesn't mean that if for technical problems we cannot use the dashed verion than we have to use the one featured now.

If you have a look at Israel map, or Taiwan you would notice (maybe in purpose in order to avoid controversy) that the maps are shown so small. However, if we take a look at the map at Geography of Israel you would notice the dashed map!

My opinion, is that if for technical problem we cannot have the dashed version than better show nothing instead a map that nobody has agreed about yet (refering to the UN while waiting for a referendum). Everywere in the world, disputed territories are shown using dashes. Therefore, Wikima is somewhat right in his comment. Cheers Svest 16:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

===>CIA maps featured here (Morocco) and here (Western Sahara) (and reproduced on Misplaced Pages) do not feature dashed lines, and rely on the context of the article to explain the political situation. In point of fact, the only dashed lines I see on the maps are in reference to Israel, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (for some reason, the Golan Heights article has been deleted). Since the other disputed territories are all islands (Taiwan, Spratlys, Antarctica, etc.), there is no clear indication of why two standards are used in the two disputes. I have seen and own several maps of Western Sahara, and dashed lines make up the majority of them, with straight lines and different fonts making up something like 40% (pure speculation). The only maps that I have ever seen incorporating them as one territory are Moroccan. While I'm happy to discuss the matter, I don't see how this issue is any different than the one discussed previously, and why the consensus reached then can't apply now; if anyone can enlighten me, please do. Justin (koavf) 19:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing for including the Western Sahara into the Moroccan map. I simply argue the fact that disputed territories use dashed frontiers. The map featured in the article suggests that it is the definite political map, which isn't. Another thing is that you are giving reference to the CIA maps while you had said earlier that it represents the position (neutral it might be) of the US toward the issue. I also invite you to check the last updated map of Africa by National Geographic Magazine (though it is not completely neutral as it is shows the dashes but still mentions (Western Sahara -Morocco). (pls use the zooming feature). Cheers Svest 21:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

===>National Geographic map This map is incorrect both geographically and politically, as it shows Asian Egypt on the map, and does not address the Western Sahara issue in any depth. Personally, I think National Geographic is not as accurate as, say, Rand-Mcnally. I honestly don't understand the problem with the map as it stands, considering the caption that accompanies it and the treatment given in the article. Justin (koavf) 23:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just mentionned National Geographic as an example and not as a justification. I've said that it is not neutral. The problem with the featured map Koavf is that it decides something not yet decided (and we don't want WP to decide things for anyone)! Cheers -- Svest 23:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  

>> Additionally to Svest's comment:

Again the sahara issue is still a conflict and it is not resolved. It is pending and this is a fact that none can deny. If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not. The map however has already decided. And this is deviously.

Fact also is that the recognition of the "SADR" by several countries does not mean that the sahara is already an independent and sovereign country. This recognitions can not be substituted to decisions of international instances.

Also these recognitions are highly instable and partly rooted in the cold war. Ca. 25% of the countries who recognised the "sadr" have cancelled, frozen or suspended their recognition. Other pro-socialistic countries whose recognition is anchored in the cold war (most prominently cuba) may change their position in case of a regime change. Is this a basis for drawing maps??

Most of the sahara territory as well as all urban centres and important cities are under moroccan control and administration. It’s a conflict case and it is fully normal that Morocco will not control 100% of the territory. Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it.

A balanced view of the topic must keep also in mind that chances for a political solution as wished by the Moroccan government (autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty) are real as well!

For at least these reasons I maintain that the current map is inaccurate.

There are actually three sorts of maps:

1) Morocco map without the sahara (as in the article),

2) Morocco map including the sahara as part of its territory (used in Morocco and some Morocco friendly media etc.)

3) Maps that show Morocco with the sahara but separated in format (dotted line, different colour temperatures etc.) and suggest that the situation is unclear. The latter reflect more the current situation and show that the sahara conflict still persists. Here you can see some examples ans see how widely they are used. This should inspire for a compromise in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38717000/gif/_38717539_morocco_sahara_map150.gif

http://www.uneca.org/aisi/nici/country_profiles/image/morocco.jpg

http://www.universes-in-universe.de/islam/eng/archiv/mar/map.html

http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sos-children-charity/morroco.htm

http://www.lintelligent.com/images/fiche_pays/maroc/carte.jpg

A presentation in wikipedia must follow these examples.

PS: The satellite photograph is similar to the the political map without the Sahara. So non relevant because disputed as well.

PPS: Your remark on the feelings of the sahrawi people are not based on any facts. There are many unionists among the sahrawis who - for different reasons - are against the independence. And if you look at facts, it is rather true that many of the main and prominent polisario politicians fled to Morocco. Mohammed Abdelaziz himself is nothing but a Moroccan whose family still lives in Morocco. And I wonder who would stay in Tindouf if algeria decides one day to open the camps...

Cheers

Wikima 11:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I still believe the dotted line map reflects the real situation; a territory under dispute. Cheers -- Svest 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  

==>Allow me to respond to Wikima

"If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not."

This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who have decided that Western Sahara is not Moroccan. The others have simply decided a policy of neutrality or chosen no policy at all. Furthermore, the African Union has also made up its mind, by admitting the SADR as a full member. All you are really saying is that no one has made up their mind that Western Sahara is Moroccan, except of course for Morocco themselves.

"Also these recognitions are highly instable and partly rooted in the cold war. Ca. 25% of the countries who recognised the "sadr" have cancelled, frozen or suspended their recognition. Other pro-socialistic countries whose recognition is anchored in the cold war (most prominently cuba) may change their position in case of a regime change. Is this a basis for drawing maps??"

Of course. Political maps represent political realities. If the next regime in Cuba does not recognize the SADR, then so be it. If no state recognizes the SADR, it will no longer be a de jure state, but may well be a de facto state, such as Somaliland. The maps are necessarily political. Some recognitions are unstable, others aren't. Some have been bought off by Morocco, some can't be. The fact that South Africa and Kenya have both given full recognition to the SADR as the rightful government of the territory in the past year proves that there is a legitimate cause for believing it a state, and recognition is not simply a product of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics.

"Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it."

Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does.

"A balanced view of the topic must keep also in mind that chances for a political solution as wished by the Moroccan government (autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty) are real as well!"

The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it after it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. If Morocco could have any outcome it wanted, that would be full integration into the Kingdom of Morocco. Although, I agree that all options presented as viable solutions should be explored: independence, partition, autonomy, integration, and the status quo. Of course, all of these are to the benefit of Morocco other than the first option.

"Your remark on the feelings of the sahrawi people are not based on any facts. There are many unionists among the sahrawis who - for different reasons - are against the independence. And if you look at facts, it is rather true that many of the main and prominent polisario politicians fled to Morocco. Mohammed Abdelaziz himself is nothing but a Moroccan whose family still lives in Morocco. And I wonder who would stay in Tindouf if algeria decides one day to open the camps..."

This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence. There are no studies that indicate anything approaching a majority in favor of Moroccan sovereignty. To say that there are many unionists is true, but is a deceptive statement. Every Polisario member who has defected has been given a lavish lifestyle compared to living in a refugee camp - it may simply be a matter of being tired of living as a refugee in the most hospitable environment in the world other than Antarctica. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Morocco has abducted, imprisoned, and murdered innocent civilians, so it is entirely possible that these unionists are choosing defection to keep their family members from becoming "the disappeared". I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected.

Mohammed Abdelaziz is a Moroccan by birth (that is, he was born inside the borders of the current-day state of Morocco), but is a Sahrawi nationally and ethnically. I have no idea why where his family lives is relevant at all. The camps are only closed in as much as the border between Algeria and Morocco is closed, and why is that the case? Because Morocco started a border war with Algeria as the latter was being decolonized. Morocco has always wanted to appropriate the territory of other independent states and former colonies as a part of its nationalist vision of "Greater Morocco", including the whole of Western Sahara, Mauritania, the Canary Islands, and parts of Mali, Senegal, and Algeria. The people are there as refugees because of Moroccan aggression against Sahrawis and are kept there because of Moroccan aggression against Algerians. The refugee situation is entirely the fault of Morocco and Spain and France for financing and instigating the conflict. Justin (koavf) 02:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

>>>> My answer (although I do not want a long polemic around this).

I have provided above some examples of maps that are used by different medias and institutions that I have really selected randomly via google. There much more examples that show that not only the Moroccan or the polisario exists but that people deal with the matter by using their brains. I suggest to think of such a compromise. We need a decision. The current map is disputed, one-sided and does not reflect the current situation in an objective and accurate way.

As re Justin's reaction this is what I can reply, quickely (lack of time):

" This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who have decided that Western Sahara is not Moroccan."

Sorry they do not represent the whole world and can decide for themselves but not in the absolute global sense. And I am talking about the international community as represented by the intrantional instances and not about individual countries or geopoltical entities that may recognise one day and cancel recognition an other day just following the politicial opportinities of the moment.

When more than 25% (almost a third) of these countries and not just a few specific cases cancel their recognition then this means that this basis is heavily instable. In this sense I maintain that the international community has not decided otherwise we would have a situation of no dispute, which is, sorry, not the case. The CIA yearbook is not the bible for absolute knosledge and the US neutral position is the position of a country which is the USA and not the position of the entire world. And this MUST be reflected at the level of the map if this is to be an objective neutral encyclopnedia.

" Of course. Political maps represent political realities. of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics."

In my opinion Morocco is too poor to buy off political positions. This can rather be guessed for involved countries with resources from oil and gas. But we are not guessing. Here again more than 25% of cancellation is simply too much, espcially for a territory that has NEVER been a state nor a country. South Africa and Kenya are countries with one “voice” just as any other country. The fact that someone from the ANC like Mbeky is at the power suggests rather that the position of SA is definitively rooted in the cold war.

"Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does."

Polisario is in tindouf. The "portion" of the territory that it claims to control is – again – an extremly peripheral marginal part. Exactly like algeria or other countries in Africa this kind of area can be easily invested by separatist or (as in the case in algeria) by terrorist groups. The fact that Morocco governs most of the territory, with all the atlantic coast, including all urban centres and important cities can not be denied. Morocco is the power in the sahara. And this is simply a fact.

" The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it after it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. "

This is your personal interpretation. If Morocco sugests this then this is his position no matter what the history of this position was. An other possible interpretation which goes against yours is that Morocco shows more smart behaviour, is ready to discuss and to go for a compromis, and is interested in finding a solution.

" This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence."

Sorry but I doubt heavily that any independant study with accurate results has been done in this sense, neither in tindouf nor on the moroccan side. On my side I am telling you above facts, FACTS, that you and everybody can verify. When highly important members of polisario escape to Morocco than this has a big meaning and automatically puts under big doubt what you are vagly trying to say about the sahrawi "feelings".

The last one who joined Morocco just one month ago had the position of a minister for justice. And if these people are so easy to manipulate and to buy just by a poor country such as Morocco as you claim then what can we say about the others who live in algeria and the credibility of this "organisation"?? And why do these people flee to Morocco and do not chose an other country for asylum such as Spain for example? And why do they flee to Morocco when the country that hosts and supports them is full of petrodollars???

These are not fictive stroies. I am telling you facts that everyone can verify around politicians and responsibles whose faith must be strong, so stong that they should give their lives for their cause. I won’t talk about simple citizens who, as the US Committee for Refugees states, are obliged to stay in the camps.

" I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected."

Are you aware of what you are saying?? "Some generals" is TOO much! For an organisation such as polisario generals are sometimes more important than politicians. And I think many of those who defected were founder members of the organisation.

Further to the presse Hamati Rabbani, the last one who joined Morocco just a few weeks agao, was "minister for justice" in polisario.

All this shows that the nucleus of polisario is highly problematic.

"Mohammed Abdelaziz is a Moroccan by birth (that is, he was born inside the borders of the current-day state of Morocco), but is a Sahrawi nationally and ethnically "

You may be do not know about Morocco. In Morocco sahrawi is one of the many things that moroccans can be. The country is diverse and deeply rooted in Africa and the Sahara. Most of its dynasties if not all of them are from the Sahara, so the current dynasty as well. To be sahrawi does not necessarely mean to be something different than moroccan. Abdelaziz was a moroccan person, nationally and ethnically. It is relevant to underline that all his family is moroccan and still living in Morocco. The first leader of polissario is not sahrawi but moroccan. This is an important fact. And moroccans know that. In algeria he decided to get "algerian papers" as one says in the region, but this is evident and does not mean any thing.

"The camps are only closed in as much as the border between Algeria and Morocco is closed, and why is that the case? "

This is not what the US Committee for Refugees says. It says that they are surounded and that algerian armee forces back into the camps everyone who tries to flee.

Algeria knows pretty well that if it opens them none would stay there. As you say conditins of live are extremly difficult and I personaly guess that many would go to spain and others would join their family members in the part that is controled by Morocco. And this way, both algeria and polisario would lose all basis for their fight.

" Because Morocco started a border war with Algeria as the latter was being decolonized Morocco has always wanted to appropriate the territory of other independent states and former colonies as a part of its nationalist vision "

This must stop and I will not comment on it. It has nothing to do with the topic nor with the encyclopedia.

(Wikima 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

Koavf and Wikima, your comments are not touching the core of this section. And I don't believe we can reach a consensus easily that way.

What I stand for is that the map is INACURATE simply because it doesn't reflect the present situation. All world is uncertain about the outcome of the conflict. We are not talking about who is right and who is wrong but rather we are talking about facts. I repeat my stance... The map should be dotted to reflect the status quo and not to reflect feelings of both sides.

One more thing Koavf (which is out of subject). I suspect you have studied the complete history of Morocco. If so then you would know that the Alaouite dynasty are from Tafilalt. Maybe also you would know that Morocco is an old country that governed many parts of Western Africa. It is not a country that came yesterday and invaded a nation. The same nation that the actual king of Morocco represents. I am also curious why don't you have a Palestinian flag in your list. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)  

===>My final word

Okay. So, Wikima, you claim the international community has not decided their view of the status of Western Sahara. This is not the case for several states, but nonetheless, we can overlook that. This article is about Morocco, not Western Sahara. The international community has made up its mind in regards to what constitutes Morocco. No state prints maps, or has diplomatic relations with Morocco on the grounds that "Morocco" is composed of the area that stretches from the Atlas mountains to Mauritania, inclusive. None. The international understanding of "Morocco" is exactly what is reflected in the map - the community has made up their minds, without exception. NOWHERE (other than Morocco, of course), will you EVER find a map that has Morocco and Western Sahara undivided as "Morocco". Since what is presently in our maps as "Morocco" is what EVERY state recognizes as "Morocco" there should be no dispute at all. EVERY state recognizes the geographic and political entities of "Morocco" and "Western Sahara" as two separate things. This alone should be case closed. I will give you two maps, also chosen at random, by reputable news organizations, one American, and one European, that show exactly what we have here: BBC News The Christian Science Monitor Every map printed by Rand McNally since 1976 shows the same thing, also. The fact of the matter is, the situation is unresolved; until it is, we will require more than pictures to explain it. This and several other articles explain the Moroccan annexation in detail, and the readers of Misplaced Pages are smart enough to read them and understand themselves. You say "we need a decision"; well, the decision has been made, and it's simply not the one that you want. The issue has been discussed, consensus reached, and the map captions amended to explain.

You also say that states cancel recognition of the SADR due to "political opportunities of the moment" and then you claim that Morocco is too poor to buy off recognition. Which one is it? No state has anything to gain by recognizing the SADR - what incentive is there? However poor Morocco is, the Sahrawi population living in Tindouf is by far poorer; they're refugees! Morocco can trade favors ("political opportunities"), whereas the SADR cannot, and that is the simple fact of the matter. The same thing occurs between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. The PRC is not rich (per capita, they are poorer than the ROC by far), but they spend tremendous amounts of money to buy recognition as the sole China (see Grenada).

You're calling "personal interpretation" on matters that are clearly historical fact. King Hassan II refused to meet with anyone from Polisario without Algerian accompaniment for decades. Is that a fact or interpretation? This forces the hand of Algeria to represent the Sahrawis themselves. You were the one who initially mentioned "feelings", and did not present evidence for them. If you want to check my facts, read the definitive English book on the subject, Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War by Tony Hodges or Toby Shelley's Endgame in the Sahara: What Future for Africa's Last Colony?

The organization (Polisario) is credible precisely because defectors are the exception to the rule - they live in the most hostile conditions on the planet as refugees, and the vast majority remain loyal, and have remained loyal for decades. Who can impugn their credibility? Yes, the citizens are obliged to stay in the camps: go west, you'll run into the wall of anti-personal landmines that Morocco strewn about the desert in contravention to international law, go south or east, and you will leave the borders of Algeria, go north, and you will encroach on the native population of Algeria. The Algerian state already supports the refugees under a tremendous strain, and to integrate them into society would be disastrous for both Algerians and Sahrawis.

To be Sahrawi is to be something different than Moroccan. Sahrawis have different societies and ways of living, economics, a different dialect of Arabic, have never lived under a king, and instead desire democracy, they make different music. The Sahrawi nationality is distinct from the Moroccan, and that is clearly the case - no one can dispute that. Even when Sahrawis live inside of the borders of Morocco, they still identify as Sahrawis. Also, you imply that Mohammed Abdelaziz is the first leader of the Polisario, and this is also not true: the movement was founded and lead for three years by El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed. Polsario will only "lose basis for the fight" once Western Sahara is independent; that is why the fight was started and those are the terms on which it will end.

The most offensive part is when you say that Morocco's nationalist and irridentist visions have nothing to do with the map, and they must stop. What about maps of so-called "Greater Morocco" that had the entirety of other countries and portions of even more? Moroccan nationalism has everything to do with the map controversy, because it caused the conflict in Western Sahara in the first place.

Since a map can only reflect one point of view (as it is one image), this map should reflect the view of ALL states other than Morocco: that Morocco is a geographic and political entity that is bordered by Algeria, the Atlantic Ocean, and Western Sahara.

Faysall, I appreciate your diplomatic approach to the discussion, but I disagree with your assertion for the same reasons stated above: a dotted map is not the universally-accepted way of dealing with the dispute, and the dispute is irrelevant anyway, since the international community never includes Western Sahara as a part of what it calls "Morocco". Since this is a map of "Morocco", it should not matter if there is a dispute over Western Sahara, since that is a different entity.

I understand that Morocco has a rich history, and as a kingdom has ebbed and flowed in size. But, directly prior to colonization, it did not control the Sahara. This is reflected in every map that I've seen from the time period (and I personally own over a dozen maps of northwest Africa printed between 1890 and 1914). This is also consistent with the ruling of the International Court of Justice. Their advisory opinion from 1975 (prior to the annexation) explicitly reads that both Morocco and Mauritania had no claim to soveriegnty or ownership over the Sahara. None. Feel free to read the opinion from the Court's site itself. Morocco did invade the Sahara - it took troops into the territory and attacked with lethal force, which contradicted the will of the people and the promises made by Spain as the colonizing state.

As for why I don't have Palestine among the flags on my user page, it is, of course, a complex issue. First of all, I would largely consider myself pro-Israel. Also, I have never really had a passion or interest in the conflict (unlike the Sahara or Papua). I feel that the plight of the Palestinians is different from the Sahrawis in several fundamental aspects:

1. The Sahrawis have no state (the Palestinians have Jordan)
2. The Sahrawis have largely resorted to peaceful measures and abided by international agreements for the past 20 years, whereas the Palestinians have not.
3. The Polisario have, with very few exceptions, targeted aggresive military personnel. High-level Palestinians support terrorism by harboring terrorists, encouraging the destruction of private property and giving subsidies to families of suicide bombers, essentially encouraging the deaths of innocent people.
4. Israel exists under constant threat of destruction from its neighbors, and has to defend itself from lethal, aggressive opposition constantly, whereas Sahrawi (or, for that matter, Algerian) independence posed absolutely no threat to Moroccan well-being.
5. Israel has made genuine attempts on several occasions to disengage Palestinian territories, whereas Morocco never has. In fact, when Ehud Barak offered to help create a Palestinian state the next day, and Yasser Arafat refused to make a counter offer, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia said that blood would be on his (Arafat's) hands. Shortly thereafter, the Second Intifada was declared.
6. There is a very real possibility that an internationally-recognzied, de facto Palestinian state will exist within a matter of months, due in large part to the cooperation of Israel, whereas that is not the case with the Sahara.

Those same statements could essentially be said of Papua and Indonesia also. I personally feel for the people who live under occupation and their human suffering is indefensible, but Palestine has supporters and a network of information and resources that does not exist for the Sahrawis or Papuans. Justin (koavf) 05:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

>> Knowledge never ends:

Justin, knowledge and science never end. As long as there are members asking questions, discussing, requesting and/or suggesting other views you can not close the topic if you you don't want to force a decision.

Again: Everyone knows that the issue of the sahara is unresolved. And until then this very situation MUST be reflected at the level of the map. None is asking to present the Moroccan view, but to provide something that is close the what the reality is. And the current map does not reflect to reality. It reflects a political position.

This must apply to the whole topic. One-sided information MUST be avoided.

I have proposed a couple of links to show that there ways to better reflect the situation as many media and institutions do. I think we MUST take this thought into consideration.

Your very long reaction appears to me as your expressing your political position mentioning what you call "historical facts". Some of them are extremely fragile and out of the subject (e.g. re polisario's credibility, sahrawi identity, omission to mention the green march, etc.).

I will not react to that as I do not think this is the right place for such polemic.

The rest does not convince (me).

I will not be there for the next couple of weeks. But I will return, sure.

I request again:

- To leave this topic open as I do NOT think that there is a consensus reached for the map

- To mention in the comment under the map the way how many other medias and institutions present the Moroccan map as well (diff. colours, dashed or dotted line etc.). For now it only shows the source (CIA) and says that Moroccan does not recognize it. As I show above there are numerous other ways. And this must be mentioned until a final solution.

In order to provide more clarification on this topic I suggest to add a sub-section that presents showing all the three versions of the map, the pro Moroccan version, the pro "sadr" version and the version of compromise (s. examples that I list above).

Cheers

Wikima 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag is irrelavant at the top of the aricle. The thing disputed are the Western Sahara issue (this means only the provinces section and geography would be disputed). In WP, there's a {SectNPOV} dedicated to disputed issues and sections. I had to put a tag on the two section mentioned above. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  

Phosphates

I don't agree about the sentence related to the production of phosphates. It goes like largely from occupied Western Sahara. There's only one major production site/mine in the Western Sahara. The rest are found between the region of Khenifra and Marrakech. Here are the details in billions of cubic meters (Source: Mining-Technology.com)

• Khouribga: 37.3
• Bengurir: 31.1
• Marrakech: 15.9
• Oued Eddahab/Rio de Oro (Western Sahara): 1.1

For the currently mined sites, you can find a detailed map here Mining Review Africa.

I hope that would make it clear why I was removing the sentence from there. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  

Treaty of Friendship

To whom he removed that part w/o any comment or notice:

"Morocco was one of the first countries to accord recognition of the new American republic when it allowed American ships access to Moroccan ports in 1777, shortly after the outbreak of the American Revolution. Less than ten years later, the two countries signed a Treaty of Friendship and Peace which was renewed for an indefinite term in 1836. As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, the Moroccan city of Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier." (source US Embassy - Rabat)

"Moroccans recognized the Government of the United States in 1777 before the end of the Revolutionary War. Formal US relations with Morocco date to 1786, when the two nations negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Renegotiated in 1836, it is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in US history." (source US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 39)

I hope also he can find about what he delated in the following links and sources:

• US Embassy in Morocco
• Bush - The American Presidency Project.
• By former US Ambassador to Morocco Edward Gabriel
• BushLibrary.tamu.edu

I hope that would not be deleted again. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  

Fayssal,

Like you, I wish none deletes your input. Plus, I hope all Americans read your input, they might sympathize more with Morocco claims in Western Sahara. I'm not going to describe your input as a political begging. But, bearing in mind the context of this talk page, I'm afraid I'm going to. Cheers, Basiri, (RASD).

Thanks for the comment Basiri. However, I wonder why everything nowadays is related to Western Sahara? If there was a treaty in the 18th century between 2 countries and when anon editors delete info about it while others reverting that, what that has to do with begging and WS?! Cheers Svest 07:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)  

Straits of Gibralter

I deleted some material relating to the Straits of Gibralter which I believe to be factually incorrect, or at very least misleading. The material states that Morocco 'controls' part of the Strait and thereby has 'power' over shipping movements between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. In fact the UN Convention on Law of Sea, to which Morocco is a signatory (although it hasn't yet ratified), regulates what can and cannot be done in international waterways such as the Stait - and the gebneral gist of the Convention is that countries bordering such passages do not have power over them of the sort implied in the deleted material. (See ]. --PiCo 09:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)