The Fading Dream to Liberate Africa’s Last Colony(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
The Fading Dream to Liberate Africa’s Last Colony
https://newrepublic.com/article/133561/fading-dream-liberate-africas-last-colony
9 comments
The Sahara belongs to Morocco just as much as "Israel" belongs to Palestine (which, according to the UN, is an actual occupied territory). Besides, speaking of "Africa's Last Colony", when is Spain giving Ceuta and Melilla back to Morocco?
Ceuta and Melilla were part of Spain lomg before Morocco even existed, so no. There is nothing to return to Morocco.
Wrong, these towns existed before Spain was even formed as a nation. i.e. it's not Spanish by origin. Take Ceuta, it was settled essentially by a power from what is now Tunisia, which itself was a colony of a middle-eastern power (mostly what is now Lebanon), this was hundreds of years before christ. Spain was formally formed more than two thousand years later.
Since then, it's changed hands many times. Fact is, it sits in a region that for thousands of years prior to the concept of the nation state was inhabited by berbers, the Moroccan people. To consider it somehow morally 'theirs' isn't unreasonable, to consider it a remnant of European imperialism is also not unreasonable.
But to consider it, politically, Spanish today, is also fully reasonable. Just like North America isn't the land of native americans anymore, and as sad as that history may be, it's something that must be accepted today and moved on from. I see Ceuta and Melilla similarly, they were once part of Moroccan territories but have been in Spanish hands for the last four hundred years, and developed by Spain for so long, inhabited by Spaniards for so long, it's simply Spain. That won't change anytime soon.
But to say it was Spanish long before Morocco existed is silly, because Morocco predates Spain (depending on your definitions of states) by a thousand years, and it wasn't Spaniards that first settled Ceuta either.
That's Ceuta, as for Melilla, it was a berber (read: north-african, in this case moroccan) village by origin, not an Iberian or Spanish or Andalusian village or w/e. Just prior to Spain taking Melilla, it was part of the kingdom of fez. Which is a Moroccan kingdom.
Since then, it's changed hands many times. Fact is, it sits in a region that for thousands of years prior to the concept of the nation state was inhabited by berbers, the Moroccan people. To consider it somehow morally 'theirs' isn't unreasonable, to consider it a remnant of European imperialism is also not unreasonable.
But to consider it, politically, Spanish today, is also fully reasonable. Just like North America isn't the land of native americans anymore, and as sad as that history may be, it's something that must be accepted today and moved on from. I see Ceuta and Melilla similarly, they were once part of Moroccan territories but have been in Spanish hands for the last four hundred years, and developed by Spain for so long, inhabited by Spaniards for so long, it's simply Spain. That won't change anytime soon.
But to say it was Spanish long before Morocco existed is silly, because Morocco predates Spain (depending on your definitions of states) by a thousand years, and it wasn't Spaniards that first settled Ceuta either.
That's Ceuta, as for Melilla, it was a berber (read: north-african, in this case moroccan) village by origin, not an Iberian or Spanish or Andalusian village or w/e. Just prior to Spain taking Melilla, it was part of the kingdom of fez. Which is a Moroccan kingdom.
Most of Spain was in Moroccan hands for even longer than Ceuta in Spanish hands, should Morocco now ask for al andalous back?
These are all ancient Roman lands, by Caesar!
First come, first meddling with history books, first serve. :D
by the same reasoning, there was never a Western Sahara as a country, so there is nothing to return to anyone.
"Last colony" in Africa is a strange way to describe it. what about Reunion and Mayotte?
Don't know about these so this is an outsider's view: With the people overwhelmingly voting to stay with France, Mayotte sounds less like a colony of France than Scotland is a colony of England. The much larger Reunion with no native population doesn't seem to have much of an independence movement looking at the Wikipedia page. If they're colonies, maybe they'd be worse off independent? I mean who'd really benefit from independence? I'm sure as soon as they become independent, they'd get kicked out of the euro zone...
Exactly - I'm an outsider too so maybe there's something I am missing (though I am from Scotland). They mentioned the Falklands as another example of colonialism - which IMO is exactly the same situation as Reunion/Mayotte (no native population, significantly worse off independent), so why not mention those? Note that I'm no defender of the British colonial legacy - I'm actually pretty critical of the whole thing, but weird contradictions like that frustrate me :)
as my french friends told me, these places get tons of subsidies from France for free (whatever reason there might be), they can come to work in France/EU anytime. yet they live in their tiny little paradises, far from stressful mainland. best of both worlds. why the hell would anybody want to leave? :)
A colony in the general sense is a territory that has been invaded and is permanently occupied, and where the native population does not have equal rights and cannot decide on their independence (or integration, since the idea is that they should have a choice).
Although it once was the case, it is incorrect to refer to Mayotte and Reunion as colonies. They are French departments. Their inhabitants are not "allowed to work in France", they are French, if they move to metropolitan France, they're just changing department. Saying they're a colony would be like saying Alaska or New Mexico are colonies. Moreover Mayotte did not vote to "stay" in France, the referendum was about switching from one status to another (essentially, from Oversea Department to 'normal' department) and they chose the most convenient one (shocking, I know).
It is true that they receive some extra subsidies, mostly because of their isolated location (which makes the cost of life higher). Due to the high level of unemployment, they also receive social subsidies, but that's just like any other department in France (but of course you won't hear a lot of complaints about how the North-Eastern regions are costing the rest of the country a ton of money...). Moreover they also receive less government investment when it comes to infrastuctures, i.e. schools or hospitals (even though they have to contend with tropical diseases and hurricanes).
The trope about "lazy black people under the tropics" (as opposed to Fench citizens who happen to live in regions where the economy is bad) is a common dog whistle in France. Much like with American nativists, there is this thing with implying who is a 'real' French and who isn't, and it seems to upset a number of white French that there are also black French who have been part of France for longer than they themselves may have been, so depicting them as remote people who are only in it to take money is quite convenient.
To get back to the main topic, it's true that "last colony" is a bit weird. There are other more-or-less similar conflicts in Africa (Casamance, Cabinda, Chagos) where the locals could refer to themselves as colonized.
Although it once was the case, it is incorrect to refer to Mayotte and Reunion as colonies. They are French departments. Their inhabitants are not "allowed to work in France", they are French, if they move to metropolitan France, they're just changing department. Saying they're a colony would be like saying Alaska or New Mexico are colonies. Moreover Mayotte did not vote to "stay" in France, the referendum was about switching from one status to another (essentially, from Oversea Department to 'normal' department) and they chose the most convenient one (shocking, I know).
It is true that they receive some extra subsidies, mostly because of their isolated location (which makes the cost of life higher). Due to the high level of unemployment, they also receive social subsidies, but that's just like any other department in France (but of course you won't hear a lot of complaints about how the North-Eastern regions are costing the rest of the country a ton of money...). Moreover they also receive less government investment when it comes to infrastuctures, i.e. schools or hospitals (even though they have to contend with tropical diseases and hurricanes).
The trope about "lazy black people under the tropics" (as opposed to Fench citizens who happen to live in regions where the economy is bad) is a common dog whistle in France. Much like with American nativists, there is this thing with implying who is a 'real' French and who isn't, and it seems to upset a number of white French that there are also black French who have been part of France for longer than they themselves may have been, so depicting them as remote people who are only in it to take money is quite convenient.
To get back to the main topic, it's true that "last colony" is a bit weird. There are other more-or-less similar conflicts in Africa (Casamance, Cabinda, Chagos) where the locals could refer to themselves as colonized.
> With the people overwhelmingly voting to stay with France
The only reason they are voting to stay in France is to get access to French subsidies for DOM/TOM (free flowing cash with no questions asked) and social benefits.
The only reason they are voting to stay in France is to get access to French subsidies for DOM/TOM (free flowing cash with no questions asked) and social benefits.
[deleted]
He's not saying that it's bad for it to be a colony, but simply that technically, it is a colony.
But yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that it's better off as a colony.
But yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that it's better off as a colony.
I think all French possessions are fully part of France. The population full French citizens, etc.
The only thing that makes them seem like colonies is that they're topologically disjoint from the mainland. By that logic Alaska is an American colony.
The only thing that makes them seem like colonies is that they're topologically disjoint from the mainland. By that logic Alaska is an American colony.
This is a decent article but it's flawed in some ways.
Some of it is simply outright wrong:
> The narrative of return and independence also presents many practical challenges. In 1976, the Moroccan “Green March” sent 350,000 Moroccans into the Western Sahara to settle, massively altering the demographics in the sparsely populated region.
The Green March was a peaceful march of 350k unarmed Moroccans into the region, that pushed out the Spaniards who had colonised it. Not a single bullet was fired, and these 350k people didn't settle there at all, they went straight back home.
On the other hand, in the past 40 years people have come to settle in the region, mostly driven by business opportunities as it's being invested in by Morocco. This is changing the demographics, but very much unrelated to the Green March. It's these quite clear errors that show the author isn't doing the proper research.
Anyway what bothers me the most is that it's so one-sided. I don't mind when authors take up a position at all, and I too am empathetic with the plight of the Sahrawi's, but it's a deeply complex issue with many facets left unspoken. Like the role of Algeria, which has financed the military rebellion for decades. And not for moral reasons, because they think it's the 'right thing to do'. Morocco and Algeria had been in a cold war, one was allied to the west/us, the other to the soviet union. Algeria also had no direct access to the ocean outside of the med. sea, and wants to build a road through the western sahara to get to a free standing port. None of this is mentioned at all, we only hear of the poor human interest story of a refugee girl who's described as a perfect western hollywood story: poor but desperate to go to school etc, read it yourself it's a bit corny.
Fact is, Morocco's various dynasties have ruled over these lands a long time. The Sahrawi's are berbers, just like Moroccans (and Algerians and Tunisians btw, they're all very similar peoples). Morocco is willing to invest heavily into the region, and is looking to give large degrees of autonomy, like has been ongoing in Morocco itself (a country which has many different berber groups, who've been getting increased autonomy, respect, special educational programmes, cultural recognition etc). But Morocco is not looking to lose territory to a few hundred thousand people under the influence of Algeria. The notion that this vast piece of land, if left alone by Morocco, will be independently and without other influences (e.g. Algeria) be ruled by a few hundred thousand people, and run as a successful nation, more so than as a part of Morocco, is I think naive.
So I fully support their right to self determination, but I'm also cognisant that it's paired with a complex geopolitical story that's left unsaid in this article, and honestly I think the best and most sensible outcome is an autonomous region within Morocco.
Some of it is simply outright wrong:
> The narrative of return and independence also presents many practical challenges. In 1976, the Moroccan “Green March” sent 350,000 Moroccans into the Western Sahara to settle, massively altering the demographics in the sparsely populated region.
The Green March was a peaceful march of 350k unarmed Moroccans into the region, that pushed out the Spaniards who had colonised it. Not a single bullet was fired, and these 350k people didn't settle there at all, they went straight back home.
On the other hand, in the past 40 years people have come to settle in the region, mostly driven by business opportunities as it's being invested in by Morocco. This is changing the demographics, but very much unrelated to the Green March. It's these quite clear errors that show the author isn't doing the proper research.
Anyway what bothers me the most is that it's so one-sided. I don't mind when authors take up a position at all, and I too am empathetic with the plight of the Sahrawi's, but it's a deeply complex issue with many facets left unspoken. Like the role of Algeria, which has financed the military rebellion for decades. And not for moral reasons, because they think it's the 'right thing to do'. Morocco and Algeria had been in a cold war, one was allied to the west/us, the other to the soviet union. Algeria also had no direct access to the ocean outside of the med. sea, and wants to build a road through the western sahara to get to a free standing port. None of this is mentioned at all, we only hear of the poor human interest story of a refugee girl who's described as a perfect western hollywood story: poor but desperate to go to school etc, read it yourself it's a bit corny.
Fact is, Morocco's various dynasties have ruled over these lands a long time. The Sahrawi's are berbers, just like Moroccans (and Algerians and Tunisians btw, they're all very similar peoples). Morocco is willing to invest heavily into the region, and is looking to give large degrees of autonomy, like has been ongoing in Morocco itself (a country which has many different berber groups, who've been getting increased autonomy, respect, special educational programmes, cultural recognition etc). But Morocco is not looking to lose territory to a few hundred thousand people under the influence of Algeria. The notion that this vast piece of land, if left alone by Morocco, will be independently and without other influences (e.g. Algeria) be ruled by a few hundred thousand people, and run as a successful nation, more so than as a part of Morocco, is I think naive.
So I fully support their right to self determination, but I'm also cognisant that it's paired with a complex geopolitical story that's left unsaid in this article, and honestly I think the best and most sensible outcome is an autonomous region within Morocco.
Morocco ain't a paradise either, though. It's an absolutist monarchy backed by brutal and vicious secret police, with huge poverty, huge inequalities, lots of corruption, no free press... even the concept of having a "cold war" with Algeria in 2016 is laughable, Algerians itself having bigger fish to fry than trying to expand their territory (considering they're barely in control of what they already have).
The Saharawi situation is one of those where the bigger guy (in this case, Morocco) has to grow the f* up, make a magnanimous act, and live happily ever after. Grant independence and be done with it; hell, if you really care, include in the agreement a free-trade no-border clause guaranteed for 50 years or something. The alternative is simply worse: Polisario and their refugee camps will forever be at the mercy of whichever enemy of Morocco wanted to stir shit up, not unlike what happens at the other end of the Mediterranean.
Territorial disputes resolved with guns, in 2016, are for the weak. Moroccans can be better than this.
The Saharawi situation is one of those where the bigger guy (in this case, Morocco) has to grow the f* up, make a magnanimous act, and live happily ever after. Grant independence and be done with it; hell, if you really care, include in the agreement a free-trade no-border clause guaranteed for 50 years or something. The alternative is simply worse: Polisario and their refugee camps will forever be at the mercy of whichever enemy of Morocco wanted to stir shit up, not unlike what happens at the other end of the Mediterranean.
Territorial disputes resolved with guns, in 2016, are for the weak. Moroccans can be better than this.
How precisely were the Spaniards "pushed out"?
They left, because they didn't want to risk a colonial war.
See for example France and Algeria just a decade earlier, which cost between 350k and 1.5m lives depending on the estimate.
Around the 1970s essentially it was clear that everything would be decolonized before the end of the 20th century, except places where you actually had 'your' people live a long time, like in Ceuta which is effectively Spanish. The Western Sahara wasn't like that, Spaniards didn't live there, it was just a military occupation for the resources there, so they knew eventually they'd have to give it up. No reason to risk a bloodshed then.
In the 1950s or 1960s there was still a lot of resistance to various independence movements, by mid 1970s there was no real question of if colonial powers would have to withdraw, only when. It was a sensible Spanish decision, only very poorly executed.
See for example France and Algeria just a decade earlier, which cost between 350k and 1.5m lives depending on the estimate.
Around the 1970s essentially it was clear that everything would be decolonized before the end of the 20th century, except places where you actually had 'your' people live a long time, like in Ceuta which is effectively Spanish. The Western Sahara wasn't like that, Spaniards didn't live there, it was just a military occupation for the resources there, so they knew eventually they'd have to give it up. No reason to risk a bloodshed then.
In the 1950s or 1960s there was still a lot of resistance to various independence movements, by mid 1970s there was no real question of if colonial powers would have to withdraw, only when. It was a sensible Spanish decision, only very poorly executed.
You wrote "The Green March was a peaceful march of 350k unarmed Moroccans into the region, that pushed out the Spaniards who had colonised it"
That sounds like they were pushed out by the marching Moroccans during a few day, not that they calmly decided it was time to move to Spain.
That sounds like they were pushed out by the marching Moroccans during a few day, not that they calmly decided it was time to move to Spain.
They were pushed out because if they didn't leave there'd be bloodshed. How hard is that to imagine?
At the same time, they calmly left. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
i.e. if a squatter goes to my house while I'm on vacation and lives there, for personal safety reasons he has a gun as do I, and I come home and make it clear it's not going to end well for either of us if he's going to stay, and the squatter makes the sensible choice to leave behind what is not his peacefully and go back to where he came from, you can say that he was pushed out by my presence on the scene. After all, if I hadn't been there he'd likely have stayed.
That's the best analogy I can think of to explain it to you.
Decolonisation was rarely peaceful, in this case it was. But even if it was peaceful, it doesn't mean Spain left for no reason. They were pressured to leave my hundreds of thousands of civilians descending on a piece of land that wasn't theirs with the support of the country. That showed them, if they wanted to keep the land, there'd be a colonial war. And if the 50s and 60s taught the world anything, it's that colonial powers always lose their stake in the end, but not before hundreds of thousands of unnecessary lives get ruined. Further, it creates animosity that lasts for many decades. Algerians and French for example still have deep wounds that need to heal, this was a post WWII war that saw massive death, destruction, torture, assassinations etc, it was quite brutal. Spain made a more sensible choice in this particular territory.
At the same time, they calmly left. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
i.e. if a squatter goes to my house while I'm on vacation and lives there, for personal safety reasons he has a gun as do I, and I come home and make it clear it's not going to end well for either of us if he's going to stay, and the squatter makes the sensible choice to leave behind what is not his peacefully and go back to where he came from, you can say that he was pushed out by my presence on the scene. After all, if I hadn't been there he'd likely have stayed.
That's the best analogy I can think of to explain it to you.
Decolonisation was rarely peaceful, in this case it was. But even if it was peaceful, it doesn't mean Spain left for no reason. They were pressured to leave my hundreds of thousands of civilians descending on a piece of land that wasn't theirs with the support of the country. That showed them, if they wanted to keep the land, there'd be a colonial war. And if the 50s and 60s taught the world anything, it's that colonial powers always lose their stake in the end, but not before hundreds of thousands of unnecessary lives get ruined. Further, it creates animosity that lasts for many decades. Algerians and French for example still have deep wounds that need to heal, this was a post WWII war that saw massive death, destruction, torture, assassinations etc, it was quite brutal. Spain made a more sensible choice in this particular territory.
You can think of eastern Ethiopia as the last African colonies, since the Ethiopian Empire grabbed a lot of it during the "Scramble for Africa".
This particular international dispute is news to me, but based on this article I hope the Saharawi people will have their land returned to them without having to rely on force. It's sad that diplomacy can result in stalemate for so long and that conflict is the means by which we seem to have to fall back on to inject some urgency into finding a resolution.
This article is really one sided. First, it doesn't cite Algeria's role in this conflict. Second, Mohamed Abdelaziz, current Secretary General of the Polisario Front is Morroccan. Most of his family lives in Morocco. Third, it doesn't talk about the terrible living conditions in Tindouf and the embezzlement of international aid by Polisarian Leaders. Final example, it doesn't show the great progress made in Laayoune or Dakhla since Spain left under Morroccan governance.
What was Algeria's role in the conflict?
As for the other arguments, you don't get to claim a territory just because you think you can run it better. It doesn't matter if Morocco has made improvements in the region if they're illegally occupying the territory, which is certainly what is being suggested by the article.
As for the other arguments, you don't get to claim a territory just because you think you can run it better. It doesn't matter if Morocco has made improvements in the region if they're illegally occupying the territory, which is certainly what is being suggested by the article.
basically this is a single-hand decision of Moroccan royalty, they do it because they can, and maybe also they don't want to lose their face while losing half of Morocco territory. If you travel there, you'll clearly see even people look completely different in those regions - Moroccans are arabs, these people are africans. their cultures are worlds apart and they really have little in common. one were conquered by the other, recently, and the world just stood and didn't care (at least it didn't end up in usual african civil war with hundreds of thousands dead and millions driven out).
this place is so far not worth any fight for anybody in the west and morocco is playing nice & easy with europe/us.
this place is so far not worth any fight for anybody in the west and morocco is playing nice & easy with europe/us.
>Moroccans are arabs
Thats a wide generalisation. There are Moroccans who speak arabic and Moroccans who speak berber, just because they speak arabic doesnt mean that they are Arabs.
> Moroccans are arabs
Moroccans are not arabs. I can hardly believe you travelled there but not know this...
Moroccans are not arabs. I can hardly believe you travelled there but not know this...
This agenda is supported by the US because of thorium in that part of Sahara, I suppose.
uPD: I was wrong. Its plain old good oil! http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/us-oil-compan... . So the US has stinky agenda there as always. Found oil in Antarctics? Its time to kill penguin terrorists, oh, by the way we have got Educated English speaking penguin appeared in Washington to form pro American government there!
uPD: I was wrong. Its plain old good oil! http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/us-oil-compan... . So the US has stinky agenda there as always. Found oil in Antarctics? Its time to kill penguin terrorists, oh, by the way we have got Educated English speaking penguin appeared in Washington to form pro American government there!
You have entirely misunderstood the article you are quoting there - its allegation is that the US and UK oil companies in question are improperly relying on a deal with the Moroccan occupying authorities to operate in Western Saharan waters.
The article that is the subject of this thread, on the other hand, is supporting the Saharawi side, which is in opposition to the oil companies in your linked article.
The article that is the subject of this thread, on the other hand, is supporting the Saharawi side, which is in opposition to the oil companies in your linked article.
This is a game. Of course underdeveloped nations are always wrong. And when developed nations get the resources, this is just a coincidence.
thorium is not in short supply. It's very easy to find more
"facts on the ground" - that anodyne term that whitewashes over occupation, dispossession and suppression the world over.
A pile of hypocricy. Why on Earth if you are so much about self-determination of Saharawi, you force them to learn English in a soft game of neocolonialism, instead of putting money into development of their local industry and culture? Because you want these people to convert to mobile workforce, seduce them to leave and get resources from their land.
"Their local industry and culture"? Most Sahrawis live in refugee camps in the desert behind the Moroccan Wall [1], an extraordinarily poor location for any sort of industry or trade.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Wall
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Wall
where did you get this "most" claim from? Western Saharan for a big part live in big cities inside the Moroccan zone, only ~100k live in camps such as tindouf.
Force them to learn English? It is the defacto language of science and technology. For a population of less than 500,000 they're not going to develop locally created curriculum for, for example, masters degrees in electrical engineering and medical sciences in the Berber language.
Icelanders have both those things in their own language at a current population of 350,000, and have had it since before they were less than 250,000.
Iceland has never consisted of 165000 people living in tents in a desert refugee camp who never had a single culture or dialect in the first place, and doesn't rely on dealing with foreign NGOs for things as basic as their water supply.
As far as I'm aware, the indigenously-developed Icelandic curriculum also teaches native Icelanders to speak English to a good standard, which they rely on heavily when interacting with the outside world without consider having to do so a terrible colonialist imposition.
As far as I'm aware, the indigenously-developed Icelandic curriculum also teaches native Icelanders to speak English to a good standard, which they rely on heavily when interacting with the outside world without consider having to do so a terrible colonialist imposition.
it did. in the 12th century. but self esteem of the bonds was so hogh, that they managed just ok.
That is true, though I have met a number of Icelanders and they do any serious science in English. They also have the benefit of extensive educational and university exchanges with Denmark and Norway. And they're not a refugee population living in a desert without a functioning government.
Classy colonialist position. If you cannot develop your own curriculum, we will move you and take your land and resources. Do you really think First American Nations had a poor life just because they had no electricity?
The First American Nations had lots of land and discretion to raise crops, hunt, and self-determine their political futures on a tribal level. These guys don't. There are 165,000 people in refugee camps because the King has control of their land and will basically never give it back. They're already moved. Their land and resources are already gone. The only way they're likely to get it back is an ugly war of some sort, a substantial part of which must be waged by external powers on behalf of these people or they will simply lose.
As this war simply isn't going to happen, the only sane way forward to get these people and their future generations out of this misery is to get them out of there and send them to places where they will be recognized as human beings instead of as an obnoxious political problem. In the current state of the world this is, for better or worse, much more practical when they are capable of supporting themselves and prospering in an urban environment. That takes education, and broadly speaking education in English is probably the choice that gives them the best options right now, unless somewhere non-English-speaking is specifically offering to give them a break (which would be smashing, doubly so if the Somewhere is Morocco itself, but I've not heard of it).
And getting just one of those people out of there and into an English-speaking nation has already contributed substantially to international recognition of their plight through this article.
As this war simply isn't going to happen, the only sane way forward to get these people and their future generations out of this misery is to get them out of there and send them to places where they will be recognized as human beings instead of as an obnoxious political problem. In the current state of the world this is, for better or worse, much more practical when they are capable of supporting themselves and prospering in an urban environment. That takes education, and broadly speaking education in English is probably the choice that gives them the best options right now, unless somewhere non-English-speaking is specifically offering to give them a break (which would be smashing, doubly so if the Somewhere is Morocco itself, but I've not heard of it).
And getting just one of those people out of there and into an English-speaking nation has already contributed substantially to international recognition of their plight through this article.
I like the way you protect that Kings's particular right to own land of these people.
> I like the way you protect that Kings's particular right to own land of these people.
ommunist, I'd like to ask you very kindly and seriously to reconsider whether you should be discussing this matter in these pages. If that reads to you as protecting the king's right then you're so laser-focused on finding a way to grind the axe of "down with colonialism" that you've already made up your mind not just what's right and wrong but what everyone else thinks and as such you have no room in your mind to understand the motives of other people discussing the matter.
There is nothing in my comment to suggest any right which the King has to those lands besides the fact that he presently occupies them and maintains an ability to command force to protect them (force which the world is disinterested in challenging). Complaining that I'm "protecting the rights" of this distasteful actor is silly and as far as I can tell all you're doing here in general right now is looking for ways to spit bile at people. That's not conducive to a healthy discussion forum.
And that's the charitable interpretation which assumes you are operating in good faith out of your care for the downtrodden of the world. Maybe you're just a bona fide troll here, in which case, you're doing a great job.
ommunist, I'd like to ask you very kindly and seriously to reconsider whether you should be discussing this matter in these pages. If that reads to you as protecting the king's right then you're so laser-focused on finding a way to grind the axe of "down with colonialism" that you've already made up your mind not just what's right and wrong but what everyone else thinks and as such you have no room in your mind to understand the motives of other people discussing the matter.
There is nothing in my comment to suggest any right which the King has to those lands besides the fact that he presently occupies them and maintains an ability to command force to protect them (force which the world is disinterested in challenging). Complaining that I'm "protecting the rights" of this distasteful actor is silly and as far as I can tell all you're doing here in general right now is looking for ways to spit bile at people. That's not conducive to a healthy discussion forum.
And that's the charitable interpretation which assumes you are operating in good faith out of your care for the downtrodden of the world. Maybe you're just a bona fide troll here, in which case, you're doing a great job.
Maybe they'd rather learn Chinese? I don't care what they study nor do I want to "colonize" their desert. Anything that improves their standard of living and political self determination is probably an improvement at this point.
If 'you' will not, China can get control of that thorium in that sands.
[deleted]
I'm not sure who's being a hypocrite? New Republic for reporting the situation?
This is not a report. This is PR of some stinky agenda the US has for that region.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/us-oil-compan...
You think it'd be better if Saharawi learned Chinese instead?
Honest position and the noble one would be to learn Berberian and develop Berberian curriculum. This is what Russians did in the 17th century with themselves, this is what the Soviet Union did for Ukrainians, Lettons, Chukchi and lots of other nations.
Bullshit article.
How about Cabinda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinda_Province#Ethnic_ground...
How about Cabinda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinda_Province#Ethnic_ground...
Mohamed Abdelaziz their Secretary General, is in power since 1976 (when Gerald Ford was US president). Pilsario has been sending kids for indoctrination to Cuba for decades.