In a recent UPI/Washington Times article titled Atlantic Eye: Morocco's Right to Sahara, Marc S. Ellenbogen reports on his recent visit to
, April 26 (UPI) -- Ambassador Hassan Abouyoub, Jens-Hald Madsen and I stood on the portico of the magnificent Mirage Hotel in Marabata. The Atlantic waves hammered the steep cove below. Hassan and I took a smokers break, as Madsen noted the vast beauty in front of us. Washington D.C.
From what follows in the article, one has to wonder what it was they were smoking while gazing down from the portico.
Having reported recently on several cases of media madness on the
“It remains undisputed that
“The Moroccan proposal for extended autonomy submitted to the UN has been praised by experts - but rejected by both the Polisario and
“The supporters of the Sahrawi, who are mostly Algerians and European 60's throw-backs, have used the question of human rights as an instrument for forcing the issue of Moroccan Western Saharan secession and independence.” Mr. Ellenbogen is apparently unaware that some 40 countries also support the Sahrawi. I’m trying to figure out who exactly these “European 60’s throw-backs” are. I suspect they are those Europeans who believe fervently in decolonization and self-determination for colonial peoples. But then Mr. Ellenbogen doesn’t appear to support self-determination. As for those Sahrawi supporters using “the question of human rights as an instrument for forcing the issue…,” what’s wrong with that? But then again the author doesn't seem to like human rights either.
“There is no legal reason for
“The consensus at this Global Panel session is that the Moroccan Western Saharan question is best left to the principals involved. The United Nations, noted a ranking European diplomat, would best serve the needs of all concerned by removing itself from the entire question.” The Global Panel doesn’t seem to have a clue here that the Western Saharan question from 1975 until the late 80’s WAS “left to the principals involved” with minimal UN involvement. And it is not a coincidence that those were the years of war between the parties. It is disturbing that the best the panel can come up with is the return to a situation which would probably make war inevitable.
What is most interesting about this article is that Mr. Ellenbogen actually tries to make a legal case for
While Mr. Ellenbogen’s avoidance of the usual false negatives is I guess commendable, unfortunately his legal approach is just as bad. As I discuss above, his arguments that
In the final analysis, this whole exercise by Mr. Ellenbogen strikes me as a thinly veiled attempt to kiss up to his gracious and generous Moroccan hosts by parroting their totally discredited legal opinions on the Western Sahara.