Tribune. On December 10, 2020, Donald Trump announced the recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara by the United States. This decision came after several weeks of tensions in the south of the conflicted territory and the Polisario Front’s announcement of the breaking of the cease-fire in force since 1991.
For Morocco, this is an important victory which consolidates the Moroccan character of the former Spanish colony. In a difficult social and economic situation for the kingdom, investments and financial aid are expected as well as access to an armament which will allow Morocco to compete with an Algerian army still perceived as a threat. In doing so, Donald Trump, an extraordinary president on departure, only formalizes the implicit position of the United States.
However, without an agreement involving the Polisario Front and without the support of the United Nations, this announcement is akin to a coup which does not mean an imminent return to negotiations or an evolution of the framework laid down by the UN. Above all, by linking the question of the sovereignty of the Sahara to the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Israel, King Mohammed VI took the risk of offending a large part of Moroccan public opinion.
Despite all the precautions of language, this victory could turn into a moral defeat if the cause of the Palestinians does not know a favorable development in the coming weeks. This is, at least, what a part of Moroccan society feels which supports the Moroccan character of Western Sahara, while being moved both by the situation of rights and freedoms in this disputed territory and by the denial of Palestinian rights. .
Call to protest
Of course, the Moroccans knew that unofficial relations existed between the two countries, but the majority of them refused to believe that official relations would be restored with the Israeli government without the latter having first made a significant gesture favorable to the Palestinian theses. . Despite reminders about Morocco’s unchanged position on the two-state solution, the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinians’ right of return, there is great unease among many Moroccans. Even if opinions differ on the extent of Palestinian rights, the Moroccan associative and political world found in this cause a vector of rallying.
If a platform of Amazigh associations hailed the normalization of relations in the name of links with the Israeli Jewish community of Moroccan origin – often steeped in Berber identity -, it also wished to recall the need to defend the rights of the Palestinians.
On the other hand, other associative coalitions, defending human rights and public freedoms, as well as political parties of the non-governmental left (Federation of the Democratic Left, La Voie Démocratique) and Islamist organizations such as the Mouvement de l ‘ uniqueness and reform (close to the Justice and Development Party, PJD) or Justice and Charity (not officially recognized) have categorically rejected the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
We find there organizations that formed the bulk of the protest troops in 2011, in the wake of the “Arab Spring”. Despite the coronavirus pandemic and the state of emergency, which make it difficult for any demonstration of opposition in the public space, they launched an appeal to protest on December 14 against the normalization of relations with Israel. This was ultimately prevented by the deployment of an unprecedented security cordon in downtown Rabat.
Insisting on the Saharan aspect of the agreement, most of the political parties which sit in Parliament applauded, as usual, the royal initiative. Logically, the attitude of the PJD (Islamist), of which the secretary general, Saad Eddine El-Othmani is the head of government, was the most anticipated. In accordance with the party’s doctrine, the Minister of Employment, who is also the General Secretary for Youth of the PJD, broke government unanimity. Telling a television channel close to Hezbollah that the Moroccans rejected this normalization, he said that this decision had surprised all activists of the Palestinian cause.
In doing so, it only expressed the general feeling within the first party represented in Parliament. However, on December 22, it was the head of government himself who signed the tripartite declaration in the presence of representatives of the United States and Israel in front of Mohammed VI and Nasser Bourita, the foreign minister usually if careful to enforce the king’s monopoly on foreign policy issues.
Gone are the days when, in October 2000, the Prime Minister from the main left-wing party, the Socialist Union of Popular Forces, led the biggest demonstration known by Morocco since the accession of King Mohammed VI to protest against the repression of the Israeli army in the occupied territories. Two weeks later, Morocco broke off relations with Israel established in 1994 in the wake of the Oslo accords.
Over the past decade, Moroccans have taken to the streets to defend Palestinian rights and denounce Israeli military abuses, whether against Operation Cast Lead (2009), or more recently, against American recognition. of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2018).
Reduce opposition
King Mohammed VI has considered for years that the issue of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara has been resolved and that only the modalities of integration of the separatists remain to be negotiated. Tripartite declarations since “ deal of Trump ”on December 10 endorsed this position. However, one is entitled to wonder to what extent these do not also consolidate Israeli policy without definitively ruling out the risk of a future annexation of new territories in the West Bank. This policy has been openly defended until recently by a Benjamin Netanyahu who hopes to be re-elected, in particular thanks to the vote of Israelis of Moroccan origin.
The agreements show that the king, sure of himself, acts alone, always in search of geostrategic gains. By involving in these agreements a head of government whose party has always been opposed to the normalization of relations with Israel, Mohammed VI is trying to reduce opposition to this diplomatic turn.
Ten years after the “Arab Spring” and a few months before the legislative and territorial elections, what remains of the credibility of political parties and Moroccan parliamentarism is again at stake; as is the freedom to publicly express disagreement with the leadership of the country. King Mohammed VI had declared at the beginning of his reign that he wanted to be in tune with the Moroccans. However, without the relay of a press and political parties truly representative of the pluralism of Moroccan society, popular sentiment remains unknown and can hardly influence the policy of the kingdom.
Thierry desrues is a researcher at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas at the Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), Cordoba, Spain.
