EU Expert, Mr. Hugh Lovatt, affirmed to SH24H that the EU “must correct its trade relations” with morocco and exclude Saharawi territory and products from it, but also stop diplomatic protection to Morocco and pressure for a just solution to this last conflict on decolonisation.
He further considered that Moroccan-proposed “autonomy” is “a false promise” and is not a reliable solution, not only because it violates the legal status of Western Sahara over which morocco has no sovereignty, but also because “autonomy arrangements have a poor track record of permanently resolving conflict.”
Hugh Lovatt is a Senior Policy Fellow with the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Since joining the Council, Lovatt has focused extensively on EU policy towards the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), domestic Palestinian politics, and Israeli regional policy.
Following is the full text of the interview:
What’s your assessment of the last crisis between Germany and Morocco then Spain and Morocco, apparently both because of these European countries’ positions on the question of Western Sahara? And how do you see Moroccan use of migration and maybe other “cards” of pressure on Europeans to negotiate or trade positions on a clear-cut issue of decolonization and of international law?
The EU’s relations with Morocco are becoming increasingly complex and difficult to navigate, due to their divergent positions on Western Sahara. This has most recently been highlighted by the escalating diplomatic crises in Morocco’s relations with Spain and Germany. Morocco’s actions to leverage the migration issue, and its diplomatic browbeating, are intended to force a change in European policies on Western Sahara. These actions are not unprecedented and have been part of Rabat’s playbook for some time now. Yet, the latest measures have been particularly brazen and prompted uncharacteristic criticism from European capitals and the European Parliament. There is a sense that Morocco may have over-played its hand this time. And indeed, European states are showing greater appetite to push back against Moroccan attempts to “blackmail” them over migration. Yet at the same time, this has not yet produced a significant shift in their positions towards Western Sahara, which remain ambiguous and aloof.
The EU Court of Justice issued so far three rulings that involve Morocco-EU relations in relation to their deals that include Saharawi resources or territory. What is the legal and political position European governments should adopt on Western Sahara in your opinion?
The EU and its member states should exclude Western Sahara from the full scope of their bilateral agreements with Morocco – including preferential trade tariffs and fishery arrangements. This would give meaning to the EU formal non-recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the territory and align their foreign relations with their obligations under international law to ensure that the EU does not assist in maintaining the illegal situation that Morocco has created in Western Sahara. In addition, the European Commission should publish clear guidelines prohibiting the use of EU funds for Moroccan entities and activities in the territory of Western Sahara.
Morocco is a close partner and ally of European countries and institutions, yet it commits serious human rights violations besides its violation of the political right of Saharawis to self-determination and independence. What should be the posture of Europe towards Moroccan behaviors in Western Sahara?
Firstly, the EU must correct its trade relations to ensure it is not complicit in the unlawful situation created by Morocco in Western Sahara and hurting the chances of peace (see above). Secondly, it should exert pressure on Morocco to support a meaningful peace process that can fulfil the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination. This includes removing diplomatic protection for Morocco at the UN Security Council and abandoning Morocco’s autonomy proposal. In addition, it should push for the expansion of MINURSO’s mandate to report on human rights violations – like every other modern UN peace-keeping mission.
In your last study about the conflict, you considered that the resolution of the conflict would help stabilize the region and Europe and the opposite would have negative effect. Why should the Saharawis accept any sort of integration or autonomy with a state like Morocco, which has no sovereignty over Western Sahara and also doesn’t seem to be a reliable or stable entity to have any sort of association with it? Can you elaborate on your views on this conflict taking into account this Saharawi criticism of European and maybe even UN vision of a negotiated solution?
In our report, we argue that the idea of autonomy represents a false promise. Based on past precedents, autonomy arrangements have a poor track record of permanently resolving conflicts. In addition, Morocco’s autonomy proposal (which is in effect a form of integration into Morocco) is contrary to Western Sahara’s international legal status as an independent territory that is separate from Morocco. It also lacks robust safeguards to ensure respect for Sahrawi rights and self-governance. At the same time, in our estimation, there is little imminent prospect of Sahrawi independence given current power dynamics on the ground, in Morocco, in Europe, in the US, and at the UN Security Council.
We propose a “third way” based on the concept of free association. The starting point for this is recognition of the Sahrawi people’s inherent sovereignty over Western Sahara and the need to guarantee their inalienable rights. This would see the creation of a Western Saharan state that delegates specific competences to Morocco. We believe this would be in line with international law and past Polisario proposals. To be viable, this would have to include strong international guarantees and supervisory mechanisms to ensure Morocco’s compliance with any agreement. Ultimately though, only the Sahrawi people can decide how to fulfil their right to self-determination.
