Join on WhatsApp 
Join on Telegram Washington DC – Brussels hosted on February 17-18 the sixth EU-AU summit. The summit saw the participation of Brahim Ghali, head of the Polisario Front and its self-styled Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
To be sure, his participation went unnoticed, and it was an embarrassment both for him, his Algerian patrons, as well as for the European Union, which allowed the head of a fictitious state to participate in the summit.
Ghali visits Brussels
Unlike all African heads of state or government or heads of delegation, Ghali was reminded of his status as he was prevented from shaking hands with the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the EU Council Charles Michel, and French President Emmanuel Macron at the summit’s official reception.
Upon his arrival in Brussels, the Polisario chief was not given the official welcome usually given to heads of delegations participating in such political gatherings. And during the summit he was neither greeted by any EU official, nor did he hold any bilateral meetings with any head of state or government.
Still, his very attendance of the summit has, once again, revealed the EU’s duplicity and doublespeak towards Morocco. It shows the EU’s reluctance to play a constructive role in helping solve the Western Sahara dispute, and to make it clear that it opposes the establishment of a state in southern Morocco.
It was both unbecoming for the EU, and unacceptable for Moroccans, to see the participation of Brahim Ghali, an alleged war criminal, human right abuser, and rapist. Not only is Ghali accused of these first-degree crimes, but he has declared war on Morocco, unilaterally broke the 1991 ceasefire and rejected the latest resolution of the UN Security Council on the dispute.
What makes Ghali’s participation in the summit unpalatable for Moroccans is the fact that it comes less than a year after the breakout of a still-unsolved diplomatic crisis between Morocco and Spain.
Spain’s decision to collude with Algeria to accept Ghali on its soil- while he was facing criminal charges and under a search warrant by a Spanish judge. To add insult to injury, he used a false identity and Spain failed to inform Morocco, sparking a crisis between Madrid and Rabat.
The EU’s attempt to appease Morocco
In an attempt to downplay the importance of Ghali’s attendance of the summit, the EU issued a statement on the eve of the event, in which it stressed that none of its member states recognizes the self-styled SADR. To whitewash its image of ill-intention towards Morocco, the EU’s statement added that it is co-organizing the summit and that the invitation issued to Ghali emanated from the AU.
This argument could, to some extent, have been acceptable had the EU itself been an invitee to the summit. But given the EU’s political and economic clout, it could object to the participation of the head of a fictitious state who is neither recognized by its member states, nor by any other major international or regional organization.
By being the co-host of the summit and hosting the event on its soil, the EU was on more solid ground and had more reasons to declare Ghali persona non grata for not representing a sovereign state.
In addition, the EU statement does not square with its own precedent during another EU-AU summit eight years ago.
Historic snubs
In 2014, the EU snubbed Polisario’s self-styled SADR for the simple reason that it does not enjoy international recognition. In addition, there have been instances where the EU, while being co-host of the summit, has shunned full-fledged sovereign states for their human rights abuses.
Such was the case with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sissi and Sudan’s then-President Omar El Bachir during the 2014 summit. It is clear, therefore, that the claim that the EU had its hands tied because it purportedly had no say in who can attend the summit is spurious.
The EU missed a chance to show its good faith towards Morocco. It could have simply denied an entry visa to Ghali like it did ahead of the 2014 summit when it denied a visa to the wife of then Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe.
Had the EU done so, there were zero chances for the AU member states to boycott the summit. Had it chosen this path, the EU would have given a clear indication about its positive neutrality and that it takes Morocco’s concerns into account and is not willing to take any action that may be construed as hostile to its position or seeking to prolong the Sahara conflict further.
In such a scenario, it would not have been the first time either for the Polisario to be banned from participating in a summit co-hosted by the AU and other major countries or regional organizations.
For example, the Polisario’s self-styled republic was banned from participating in the Third India-Africa Summit in New Delhi in October 2005. It was also banned from participating in the first China-Africa summit held in December 2015.
What makes China’s decision more remarkable and politically significant is that it rejected participation in the summit even as the latter was hosted in South Africa, one of Algeria’s foremost allies in providing diplomatic and political support to the Polisario in international fora.
Ghali was also declared persona non grata by Russia when it hosted the first Russia-Africa summit held in Sochi in October 2019.
Diplomatic toolkit
Some could argue that unlike Russia, China, and India, which have not signed a partnership with the AU, the EU is bound by its partnership with the AU. As such, it must invite all its member states to the summit.
But this argument could hold the ground if all AU member states were recognized by the international community as sovereign and independent states. Yet, the particularity of the AU means it has a member state that has neither the trappings of a sovereign state, nor is recognized internationally.
From a purely political standpoint, the EU should have avoided stepping in any gray areas or given any reasons that could strain its already fraught relations with Morocco.
By acquiescing to Ghali’s attendance at the summit, the EU has given him and Algeria a lifeline and more fodder to continue to stiffen their position vis-vis the UN led-political process, and belief that the establishment of an independent state in southern Morocco is still within reach.
While doing so, the EU has failed, once again, to show to Morocco and to the Moroccan people that it is a reliable partner it can count on to leverage its political and economic clout to bring about a change in Algeria’s position, the most likely path towards ending this decades-long territorial dispute.
At the very least, the EU could have shown that it is unwilling to provide the Polisario and its Algerian backers any opportunity to entertain what the late King Hassan II once called their “deception of the century,” about the existence of a so-called independent state called the SADR or the illusion of the existence of people fighting for its independence from a foreign occupation.
More than any other global players, the EU and European countries have a moral and historical responsibility towards Morocco and towards the Moroccan people.
A problematic history
Their historical records brim with diplomatic and legal documents that attest that the Western Sahara belonged to Morocco. This was clear at the height of European countries’ struggle to weaken Morocco and dismember it at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century.
As France was attempting to encroach further on Morocco’s territory to enlarge its Algerian territory, French diplomat and historian Victor Bérard said: “Morocco’s dismemberment was not only a danger for Algeria, it was also a crime against the Moroccan people. It was criminal to scarify Morocco’s integrity and future for the sake of selfish petty schemes.”
More than 129 years later, Bérard’s words still resonate and show to what extent his prophecy materialized and the extent of the economic, political and diplomatic damage that European countries’ petty and self-centered schemes have inflicted on Morocco.
The occupation of Morocco was made possible through the collusion of France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. This was materialized through the October 1904 agreement between the UK and France, as well as in the April 1904 agreement between France and Spain.
While Morocco was still a sovereign and independent state, these countries arrogated the right to dispose of its territory without seeking its consent. As American professor Frank E Trout explained in his book “Morocco’s Saharan Frontiers,” both agreements, which contained a secret annex, constituted a violation of international law, as they did not seek to obtain Morocco’s approval.
Had France, Spain, the United Kingdom and the other parties that took part in the 1906 Algeciras Conference respected the latter’s provision with regards to Morocco’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the provisions of international law, this territory should have been never separated from Morocco and the question would have been settled upon its independence in 1956.
The lingering question, however, is whether the EU really wants to see Morocco get rid of one of its major diplomatic headaches since its independence and preserve its territorial integrity.
It seems that Europe still views its interests in Morocco from the same Machiavellian perspective as more than a century ago and still clings to the same mantra that allowed it to secure a foothold in Morocco: adopt the policy of divide and conquer in order to prevent Morocco from ever doing away with one of the consequences of European greed and colonialism.
A new approach?
In light of the EU’s track record on the Western Sahara dispute and its reluctance to take any step that may reconcile it with history and put Morocco on the right track toward ending this chapter of its history, it appears that the EU is adamant about keeping this conflict as a thorn in Morocco’s foot and a burden that prevents it from reaching its full potential as a regional powerhouse and from having a stronger bargaining power.
The EU’s court of justice repetitive interference in the dispute and encroachment on the United Nations Security Council’s exclusive prerogative by invaliding the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement and agriculture agreements and Ghalil’s participation in the EU-AU summit provide ample evidence that European countries have yet to do away with their post-colonial mentality and regard Morocco as a full-fledged partner, rather than their backyard.
Morocco must take note of these recent developments and take advantage of its increasing influence in Africa to gather the necessary support to expel Polisario’s entity from the AU.
SADR’s 1984 admission to the Organization of African Union, the AU’s precursor, was an anomaly and a blatant breach of the rules of international law. It is time that Morocco started taking the first steps to rectify this historic error.
Meanwhile, Morocco should implement the new directives of its foreign policy as laid out by King Mohammed VI during his November 2021 speech, when he said that Morocco will not engage in any economic or commercial transaction with countries and regional groupings that have ambiguous and ambivalent attitudes towards Morocco with regards to its territorial integrity.
Samir Bennis is the co-founder of Morocco World News. You can follow him on Twitter @SamirBennis.
