Kissingers involvement in the Green March

Kissinger was a very controversial figure in how Morocco seized the Spanish Sahara. There is even some speculation that Kissinger himself gave Hassan the green light to invade the Sahara part of Spain. Kissinger was pro Morocco gaining that area of the Sahara in fear that if they didn’t, then communism would spread there. Kissinger also successfully helped secure American support for the regime of his newly befriended Juan Carlos King of Spain. Kissinger then helped to negotiate the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Western Sahara. Where he was involved in both morocco and Spain, telling the Spaniards they will cut off all their military aid and technology assistance and force a harder embargo[1]. It becomes complicated once Kissinger started talks with Hassan privately advising him with a lot of speculation telling Hassan how to get what he wants. Then he would meet with the Minister of foreign affairs Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika, where in Paris in 1975 he assured the minister of foreign affairs of that the US was staying neutral and not getting involved, in the conflict. Bouteflika calls on Kissinger to get a UN referendum, and Algeria would accept it, but also told Kissinger that the US could have interrupted their civilian and military aid and established an embargo on Morocco, which would have stopped any invasion[2]. What Bouteflika said there proves that Kissinger really was on a side, because Kissinger’s only response was that he was worried for the spread of communism. On morning of November 3 President Ford, Scowcroft and Kissinger met in the Oval Office Green March was discussed. Kissinger believes Algeria wanted a port and there were rich phosphate deposits there, and Algeria was threatening the US with their Middle East positions. It’s not confirmed but there is a lot of talk that Kissinger misled President Ford about the situation in Morocco, and about the Algerians really threatening to use Middle East position[3]. Kissinger explained to President Ford that this was probably shaping up to be another Greek-Turkey problem, which meant the US would lose either way. The 3 of them decided that the UN should take care of it, and planned that the "UN could do it like West Irian, where they fuzz the consulting wishes of the people, and get out of it[4]. On November 5th the Assistant Secretary of State, Alfred Atherton was revealing the substance of his reasonable suggestion for the Sahara issue when Kissinger interrupted him to say just turn it over to the UN, to deal with[5]. The following day Hassan announced the withdrawal of his marchers from Spain. However it was Kissinger’s belief that if Hassan didn’t get success he would be overthrown, So Kissinger and President Ford hoped for a rigged UN vote[6]. Obviously Kissinger didn’t deliver in the rigged UN vote instead the Sahara was divided into 2/3 became Moroccan and the other third went to Maritime. What we know or understand about Kissinger is that even before this he was a controversial figure in other world matters. In this conflict he manipulated Spain through economic threats, and encouraged Morocco to threaten Spain with violence to get what they wanted. He also lied to the former prime minister of foreign affairs, current president of Algeria, that the US was neutral, and in no way wanted one side or the other. He is believed to have misled President Ford in the situation in Morocco and Algerian intent, and was clearly caught from the documents that were released to conspire with President Ford about rigging the UN referendum in Morocco’s favor. Some files on this matter were declassified 4 years ago which has a lot of importance because the former Algerian minister of foreign affairs, that Kissinger misled and led to, is now the President of Algeria.

---

The Green March

The current conflict in Western Sahara in Morocco is a deeply rooted unsolved issue that dates back to the 1884 Spanish occupation of Morocco which was later reviewed in 1975 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) coming to surprising conclusions about self determination and the rights of indigenous populations. From the late 1800’s to the mid 1970’s Morocco was divided colonial territory between France and Spain. However in 1956 France, believing in the right to self-determination, peacefully withdrew all occupying forces from Morocco. Spain was expected to do the same.

However, Spain felt differently about the situation entirely and remained an occupying force in both northern parts of Morocco and in the former Spanish Sahara, now Western Sahara. On home soil, Franco was lying in a hospital bed terminally ill with little control over what was happening within his own borders, let alone with the colonies.[1] Franco himself was quoted to have said to declare war on the Moroccans, but this never occurred. Spain was barely prepared to handle any sort of military conquest abroad and was also battling its own fronts against a homegrown terrorist organization, ETA, accused of assassinating Spanish Prime Minister Admiral Carrero.[2]

The state of Morocco consists of more than just lines drawn on a map and the political institutions constructed by man’s imagination. The nation consists of strong religious and cultural bonds that tie the people and their leaders to region that date back as far as the 11^th century.[3] With such a strong relation to the area, it is easy to explain why a group of people would desire self-determination and self-governance over all of the land that was once rightfully theirs. At the time King Hassan was the ruler of Morocco and one can argue is responsible for the annexation of the Western Sahara. Although there seem to be mixed views about the popularity of King Hassan. He often abused his power as King and in 1963 suspended parliament and declared a state of emergency due to the civil unrest in the territory and in 1971 there was a failed attempt to overthrow the monarchy and establish a republic.[4] However he was able to gather 350,000 volunteers in a march in order to regain the territory of Western Sahara in order to reunite the full Moroccan state.

The Western Sahara, then Spanish Sahara, was and still is the main point of contention. In 1973, the POLISARIO front, supported by Algeria, began to develop in support of self- determination in the Spanish Sahara using guerilla warfare tactics and causing major unrest for the King Hassan and Spanish occupation alike.[5] In 1975 it was Spanish occupied territory yet three other peoples, the Moroccans, the Mauritians, and the indigenous tribes of the Sahara supported by POLISARIO claimed it as rightfully theirs. On October 16, 1975 the International Court of Justice released a review stating that there was overwhelming support for an independent state and self-determination of the indigenous population and obviously Spain had no right to be occupying the territory, nor did Morocco or Mauritania have strong enough ties to the territory to claim rightful annexation of the region.[6] In despite of this report Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania found their own path to a resolution without including the indigenous population.

In response to the release of the ICJ advisory report King Hassan organized a peaceful protest that was titled the “Green March.” In November of 1975 he asked for 350,000 volunteers to cross the border into the Spanish Sahara armed only with a Qa’ran in order to protest the Spanish occupation and reunite what was “rightfully” Moroccan. Almost immediately, following were a serious of agreements dictated in accordance with UN international law, but not at all in accordance with ICJ advisory opinion of October 16.[7]

On November 14, 1975 the Tripartite Agreement, also known as the Madrid Accord, was signed between Spain, Morocco and Mauritania, handing over the power of the territory between Morocco and Mauritania. For the Moroccans this was a reunification of a nation, a former fractured state becoming whole again. Internationally, this was a relatively peaceful transition and a successful multilateral agreement. But for POLISARIO and the indigenous population of the Western Sahara, the power over Western Sahara just shifted from one occupying force to another, leaving us with the conflict unsolved today.

---

[1] Pablo de Orellana, "Remember the Western Sahara? Conflict, Irredentism, Nationalism and International Intervention," International Relations, http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2005#_ftn2 (accessed November 21, 2010).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jerome B Weiner, "The Green March in Historical Perspective," Middle East Journal 33, no. 1 (Winter 1979):http://0www.jstor.org.dewey2.library.denison.edu/stable/4325817 (accessed November 19, 2010).

[4] BBC News, "Timeline: Morocco," September 11, 2010, http:/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/2431365.stm (accessed November 21, 2010).

[5] any Jerome B Weiner, "The Green March in Historical Perspective," Middle East Journal 33, no. 1 (Winter 1979):http://0www.jstor.org.dewey2.library.denison.edu/stable/4325817 (accessed November 19, 2010).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

G20 a step in a direction

The G 20 in Seoul Korea was really only about reaching a financial agreement. President Obama, and the secretary of treasury Tim Geithner just kept pushing their same message for China to allow fluctuation with its pegged yuan. If China would let its currency rise more quickly then China would consume more domestically causing their exports to decrease, which would ease our trade deficits. However the G 20 has no way to enforcing china to rely less on exports and more on their domestic market, especially while the US does the opposite. China is claiming now that the US's move to pump 600 billion dollars into the economy will only devalue the dollar, which means our exports will go up. What it looks like is the US is being hypocritical trying to get the Chinese to rely more on their imports and value their money higher, when in fact we are doing the exact opposite of what we want them to do, and we really expect them to do it? Another problem or future problem discussed in the G20 is that if US and Europe maintain interest rates at near zero levels, investors will chase bigger returns and borrow money in the US and Europe with interests rate near 0 then they lend to developing nations like Brazil. This will cause an Asset bubble, which is formed when assets are over inflated due to excess demand. Once investors decide to move their money somewhere else, all the overvalued currency plunges, which also means exports lose their edge because their goods are costlier abroad. That explains why Brazil's real has risen 35% against the US dollar since the start of last year. There is no one solution for this problem because you can tell developing nations to lower their interest rates to avoid this from happening but you have no way of enforcing it, also the developing nations need high rates because with widening deficits and debt loads reaching almost 60% in a country like Brazil they need high interest rates to attract loans. There was obviously nothing agreed upon for a resolution but it has been called a work in progress. Its highly unrealistic to come up with an agreement.

G20 Summit

DISCLAIMER: Serious lack of knowledge in regards to economics- but I attempted.

One of the main topics of Friday's G20 summit was how to correct the trade imbalances that contributed to causing the crises and that hinder recovery. Certainly the tension was heightened as the leaders of the top 20 most powerful economies sat together in one room and tried to find the solutions to end the worst economic crisis in history. In an address at the summit Obama wielded his usual rhetorical tactics as a crutch, grappling at glimpses of "hope," "change," and a common goal of economic prosperity that "we" all want to see in an attempt to sway his audience to a 4% limit on national trade deficits. Which, apparently, was no where near reached. Nor was it a realistic to believe that it is even remotely accomplishable.

The root of the problem, according to the US, lies in the improper valuation of the Chinese yuan-artificially weak-giving the Chinese an unfair advantage in foreign markets and exports. In Obama's address he alluded to the fact that the Chinese are highly dependent on the American market and demand. All of this having a domino affect around the world. China claims that it is doing all it can in order to "revalue" its currency but can only do so much in such unstable economic waters, and must wait until the storm clears.

Although it might make be in everyone's best interest for China to value its currency to reflect actual economic situations, its in China's best interest not to. It's a simple application of realism and action based on self interest. The theory of realism argues that a state 1) will always act out of self interest, 2) can never and should never trust another state 3) security is the most important goal. We can see this most clearly on the domestic political level, especially in the United States. Currently there is a call to return to conservatism, to protect the "self"- being the United States citizen. I argue that this is due to the threat of the economic crisis. The emergence of the far right "Tea Party" is a direct reaction to the crisis (and the way it has been handled).

The tension from this "threat" is being felt all over the world, and naturally (according to realism) states are going to act out of their own self interest in order to protect themselves from further damage from the crisis. In this case, China is benefiting from having artificially weak currency, raising it to its proper value would mean a decrease in exports and a decrease in GDP- why would it ever make sense for China to do that? Because its fair? It is going to take much more than political jargon and G20 summits to change China's mind about it's currency. China already has the upper hand in the situation and realizes the position it has put other nations, like the US, in. In order for real "change" to happen there has to be real incentive.

The New Republican Congressman

Here is a "Before they were famous" list of the some new congressman and their previous jobs. We should discuss this at length. What do you guys think? Do we still live in a meritocratic society?

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/before-they-were-famous-the-new-congress-20101104?page=1

Elections

Midterm elections were held today in many states across the US. Many predict that the house will now turn over to the Republicans and that the Dems will have a dramatically reduced majority in the Senate. What could this mean for US image and even US foreign relations, including relations with Spain?

Images that changed the world..

This link is a youtube video of "images that changed the world." Do you think that an image can actually change the world? How many people can an image actually reach? How do different perspectives change how the image may affect them? If there was an image to define Spain today what would it be? what about the United States?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIsE-awTjU&feature=related

Merkel

I stumbled across this on my Google NewsReader. Just wanted to share it.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/merkel-says-multiculturalism-has-failed,18303/

The role of the EU

In class, we discussed that the EU is an economic agreement in order to create more liberal policy in regards to trade, economic policy, and even policy in movement of peoples. But this however, seems to step outside of the boundaries of what the EU was made for. Will the EU begin to evolve into a more powerful IGO and even have a military presence? What will the future of the EU look like?

Here is a video about the EU training soldiers in Somalia.

King Juan Carlos of Spain´s Middle Finger

Aznar´s Middle Finger

Jose Maria Aznar Spàin´s ex prime minister (1996-2004) from the People´s Party flips off students protesting against him in the University of Oviedo (Asturias).

Bush´s middle finger

Aznar: Islamic terrorism

Zapatero´s Daughters

Lets continue the discussion began in class here on the blog. Post your comments below.

23 of February 1981- A failed Military Coup

We saw some images of the attempted military coup on the 23 of February 1981 in the period of consolidation of the Democratic Transition. What is your opinion of this event ? Does the involvement of the military surprise you? Could you ever imagine this occurring in the United States?