IN 2007 Morocco presented before United Nations autonomy proposal for Western Sahara. Said proposal was backed by the government of Donald J. Trump, saying it was the most “serious, credible and realistic to resolve the dispute”. This proposal was approved by the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez on March 14, 2022.

We will analyze it from the historical point of view of the conflict that the colonies faced Ethiopia And Eritrea.

Eritrea was colonized in 1885 by Italy, who founded the colony of Eritrea after signing the Treaty of Vichal with the Kingdom of Ethiopia. After the Second World War, the territory of Eritrea became part of the administration Great Britain. During this period, the Eritrean Unionist Party sought the unconditional union of their country with Ethiopia. For its part, the Eritrean Muslim League called for the country’s independence.

In the absence of agreement, the issue was submitted to the UN General Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Italy. The United Nations Commission, established to “study the issue” and as a result presented proposals for resolving the dispute, taking into account the following factors:

1- Ethiopian rights and claims based on geographic, historical, ethnic and economic reasons;

2- The need to find a compromise solution acceptable among the solutions advocated by the population, from independence to union with Ethiopia.

Based on these considerations, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 390 A, which recommended:

“1. Eritrea shall be a federal autonomous entity together with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown.”

The Ethiopian Constitution, adopted in 1952, included said resolution establishing in Article 3 that: “Eritrea is a federal autonomous entity with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown.“.

It is clear that centralized authoritarian states rarely respected the autonomy of regional jurisdictions, which in most cases led to violent conflicts.

Centralized authoritarian states rarely respected the autonomy of regional jurisdictions.

Despite all the efforts made, in 1961 the Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassieannulled the autonomous status of Eritrea, downgrading its status to a province within the Ethiopian Empire.

The Eritrean resistance, led by the Liberation Front, then moved against Ethiopia, leading to various conflicts that culminated in open warfare in 1983. Democratic People’s Republic of Ethiopia Founded after the overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie in the 1974 revolution, it re-proclaimed Eritrea an autonomous region in 1987.

In 1993, after three decades of national liberation war and as a result of the peace talks held in Washington, the new Ethiopian transitional government recognized the right of Eritreans to hold an independence referendum, which was held in April. The people of Eritrea voted almost unanimously for independence; 99.83% of voters said “yes” – 1,100,260 Eritreans out of a total of 1,102,410 – who recognized him and accepted the United Nations on 28 May 1993 as an official member.

If history teaches us anything, it is that it is doomed to repeat itself. On April 11, 2007, Morocco submitted to the UN a proposal for a solution under the slogan “Moroccan initiative to negotiate a statute of autonomy for the Sahara region“. This proposal is based on the premise, accepted exclusively by Morocco and by no means by the United Nations, that Western Sahara is already part of Morocco and under its sovereignty. In particular, in paragraph 2 “initiative“Indicated that”Morocco undertakes to submit an initiative to negotiate a statute of autonomy for the Sahara region within the framework of the Kingdom’s sovereignty and national unity.“.

This proposal involves the creation of a statute of autonomy for the Sahara under the sovereignty of the Moroccan monarchy. It must be made clear that the Moroccan proposal did not go beyond a simple theoretical proposal, since it was not accepted by either the Frente POLISARIO or the UN Security Council itself. This proposal was regarded by his supporters as the most “serious, credible and realistic for a fair and lasting dispute resolution“. This proposal was joined by the US government of Donald J. Trump in his presidential statement of December 4, 2020, and most recently by the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez in a letter sent by the President of Morocco to King Mohammed VI in December. March 14, 2022, later defended before the Congress of Deputies.

Let’s analyze the solution proposed by Morocco, bearing in mind that it is based on erroneous and incompatible with international law postulates, such as Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, which has never been recognized internationally.

First of all, it is worth considering whether the specified solution to the conflict is legally acceptable, determining whether it is contrary to international law.

If we look at Resolution 390 A, adopted by the UN to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Commission considered it necessary as a factual assumption to recommend the autonomy of Eritrea under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown, the existence of previous “Ethiopian rights and claims for geographical, historical, ethnic and economic reasons over the territory of Eritrea”. The presence of these reasons, which did exist between Ethiopia and Eritrea, prompted the United Nations to recommend this statute of autonomy.

Transferring these criteria to the conflict of interest to us, this factual premise does not exist in the situation of Western Sahara in relation to the claims of Morocco, and it does not exist, since on October 16, 1975 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that the territory of the Sahara did not zero earth when the Spaniards arrived and therefore the indigenous population was to be counted, and that the historical claims of Morocco and Mauritania were not grounds for claims to the sovereignty of the territory and could not replace the right to self-determination of the indigenous population of the territory.

The absence of these historical links, this necessary factual basis, means that the decision on autonomy recommended for the settlement of the conflict in Ethiopia and Eritrea cannot be taken by the UN in the context of the Saharan conflict without violating international law.

And the fact is that the absence of this factual premise determines that the Moroccan proposal is not only invalid, but also unjust in terms of international law, since it contradicts its legal system, thereby completely delegitimizing the Moroccan occupation of the territories. , which in short is an invasion of a non-autonomous territory in the process of decolonization.

The Moroccan proposal is not only unfair, in that it is contrary to international law, and fruitless in the sense that it will not lead to the intended goals, but also illogical from a rational point of view.

This proposal also runs counter to more than thirty United Nations resolutions issued since 1965, which affirm the inalienable right of the people of the Sahara to self-determination and which, since 1979, have demanded an end to Moroccan occupation.

But besides the fact that this proposal is contrary to international law, and therefore unfair, it also does not correspond to the intended goals of the decision.simple and strongdispute, but there is not and will not be, because the very history of Eritrea shows us that the establishment of an autonomy regime under the sovereignty of another state, centralist and authoritarian, is doomed to failure. After the establishment of the autonomy regime and after more than thirty years of war, a self-determination referendum was a viable solution that provided the Eritrean people with the historical justice they deserved.

But, in turn, the Moroccan proposal is not only unfair, since it contradicts international law, and fruitless, since it will not allow achieving the intended goals, it is illogical from a rational point of view, since it does not and will not resolve the conflict in an obvious and obvious way, due to the fact the simple fact that no people subjected to abuse, torture, violations of rights and even genocide will agree to submit to the sovereignty of their own oppressors.

Having carried out this analysis, it is also worth seriously considering whether the autonomy of the Sahara can really be preserved under the sovereignty of Morocco after the human rights violations suffered by Sultana Haya, Brahim Dahane And Aminatou Haidar, among many others? And to what extent will this offer be accepted by Saharan prisoners sentenced to life in Moroccan prisons? We seriously considered whether they could continue to live in peace knowing that they would be subject to the sovereignty of their oppressors. To what extent will the Frente POLISARIO adopt another decision that is not a referendum on self-determination or the very will of its sovereign people? Can we also go against his will?

For all that, the only solutionserious, credible and realistic“and it guarantees a solution”simple and strongthere can be no other path to conflict than the path of self-determination, the holding of a referendum, for which the Saharawi people have been preparing for more than fifty years and which would be the only solution that would finally do historical justice to their people.

Any other decision that does not respect international law, not only contradicts it, but also deserves condemnation at the international level, is historically unjust, rationally incomprehensible and illogical, and deprives an entire people of their sovereign will.

Oscar Presa Gonzalez (Madrid, 1977) – Senior Prosecutor of Torrevieja (Alicante). Graduated from the Faculty of Law of the University of Valencia. Specializes in international criminal cooperation and organized crime.