Western Sahara

I am fond of obscure conflicts, and few are more obscure than the one in Western Sahara. This territory was one of Spain’s few colonies in Africa, which Spain only ceded in 1975. They handed it over to joint Moroccan-Mauretanian rule, in spite of an ICJ decision that the territory should have self-determination. A resistance movement chased out Mauretania, but Morocco continues to rule most of the territory and insist that it is rightfully theirs. Algeria has been supporting the rebels.

This is one of those long but slow-burning fires in international relations. I came across a recent article, written by a Peruvian but with all the fervour of a Moroccan, arguing that Western Sahara is an integral part of Morocco. The article makes great use of the concept of sovereignty, as one might anticipate, including the obligatory reference to Westphalia. What struck me most about it was the argument that sovereignty and territorial integrity are fixed: “under no circumstances is the territorial integrity of a State negotiable,” the author argues. He goes on to say that “the geography and geopolitics of a country are assumed to be immutable.” This is pretty much the same thing we hear regarding Ukraine. I wonder how the author of this article regards the territorial exchanges made in the Peace of Westphalia, notably France’s acquisition of Alsace. If Westphalia embodies sovereignty, and sovereignty assumes immutable territory, how is this contradiction to be resolved?

The fact is that nothing is immutable in human affairs. Whether Western Sahara rightfully belongs to Morocco or should be independent is a separate question, but I quite confident that any world order imaginable save a single central government will inevitably involve territorial changes. And even a central government would probably include such changes; witness the Soviet Union, which transferred several provinces (including Crimea) to Ukraine, creating the basis for one of Russia’s disputes with the existing national government.