Western Sahara: 50-year independence fight blocked by Morocco
It spans 266 000 km² and is home to approximately 620 000 people, mostly Sahrawis.
Spain colonised the region in 1884 and withdrew in 1975 under the Madrid Accords, transferring administrative authority to Morocco and Mauritania, though no sovereignty was ceded.
This triggered Morocco's annexation and the rise of the Polisario Front.
Additionally, the United Nations (UN) recognises it as Africa's last non-self-governing territory.
Morocco controls 70-80% of the land; the Polisario governs the rest as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR).
The region remains under UN supervision pending decolonisation and a referendum.
The Sahrawi population includes hundreds of thousands of Sahrawi refugees in Algerian camps near Tindouf.
The Polisario Front is led by Brahim Ghali, who also heads the Sahrawi Republic.
Morocco's 2007 autonomy plan proposes local governance under Moroccan sovereignty.
France endorsed the plan in July 2024, joining the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).
Ghana reaffirmed its backing in June 2025, calling the plan 'the only viable solution'.
The UK signed a joint communiqué supporting Morocco's proposal as 'credible and pragmatic'.
The US maintains its recognition of Moroccan sovereignty, initially stated in 2020.
Furthermore, Morocco claims support from many countries, including Kenya and Guatemala.
Despite this, the UN still considers Western Sahara a non-self-governing territory.
Algeria backs the Polisario Front and hosts Sahrawi refugees in Tindouf.
The Polisario insists on a UN-supervised referendum including independence.
In July 2025, it reaffirmed the 1991 UN-African Settlement Plan as the only legal solution.
Internal dissent is growing in Tindouf camps, with calls for leadership reform.
Algeria condemned France's recognition of Moroccan sovereignty and recalled its ambassador.
The UN has criticised Morocco's refusal to allow human rights monitoring in the region.
The European Court annulled trade deals involving Western Sahara due to a lack of Sahrawi consent.
As a result, the conflict remains unresolved, with sporadic clashes and diplomatic tensions persisting.
Morocco continues to exploit Western Sahara's phosphates and renewable energy.
The Sahrawi Observatory (SONREP) reports illegal wind and solar projects, excluding locals.
Green hydrogen projects in occupied Western Sahara risk exacerbating water scarcity and violating international legal standards due to a lack of Sahrawi consent.
Foreign firms from France, China, and the UAE are involved in resource extraction and renewable energy projects in Western Sahara without Sahrawi consent.
UN human rights experts condemned Morocco's demolition of Sahrawi homes linked to energy and infrastructure expansion.
Human rights abuses include arbitrary detention, torture, and suppression of dissent.
On the other hand, Morocco severely restricts UN access to Western Sahara for human rights monitoring.
Civil society demands immediate humanitarian assistance and legal responsibility for any violations.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Bumpy road lies ahead for the nation
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, met in the While House recently. The US has been very critical of South Africa's foreign policy stance, which, on many occasions, went against the American national interests, according to the writer. Image: AFP September, a month synonymous with renewal and new beginnings, will be the most challenging period in South Africa's political and economic landscape due to actions likely to be taken by the US against the country. The first is the end of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is set to expire in September. However, the new 30% tariffs introduced by the US for SA will likely override the existing AGOA conventions when they take effect at the beginning of August 2025. The second biggest conundrum will be the possibility of the US Senate's decision on the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025. The ground is fertile in the US to act against the South African government, which is believed to have acted against the US's national interests. The US has been very critical of South Africa's foreign policy stance, which, on many occasions, went against the American national interests. This has been evident in their divergent voting patterns on various United Nations (UN) platforms, where South Africa and the US have often taken opposing positions. The relations between the US - SA did not break during the Trump administration, and Joe Biden also raised similar concerns about South Africa. The ANC should be told, 'You made your bed, now lie in it.' They have chosen to strengthen their alliances with the geopolitical rivals to the West at the expense of decades of working partnerships with the Western powers. It was very shortsighted of the ANC to believe that there would not be actions or reactions from the side of the US on how it is being undermined by Africa's powerful regional bloc. The escalating tensions between the US and South Africa took an uphill path in 2022 when South Africa was alleged by the US to have loaded the Lady R with armaments that would be used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The South African government dismissed this allegation. In 2023, in the aftermath of Israeli attacks by Hamas on the 7th October 2023, we saw South Africa continuing with its support for Hamas, a designated terror organisation by countries such as the US and European Union (EU) countries. Dr. Naledi Pandor kicked off a diplomatic storm when she agreed that she had a telephonic conversation with the same Hamas and offered them humanitarian support, a vicious group that invaded Israel and killed more than 1 200 innocent civilians and kidnapped more than 250 people, some are still held under the tunnels in Gaza to date. Just when we thought that the ANC would tone down its anti-US messaging, it did the unexpected by dragging the State of Israel into the UN's International Court of Justice (ICJ). Their legal basis was that Israel was committing genocidal acts in Gaza. This act by the South African government would be seen as heroic by some, while others criticised the move because it would not be a viable solution to the longstanding Israel-Palestine conflict. It is possible that the ANC's thinking at the time was to maximise its electoral fortunes, which drastically dropped to below 50%. Their energy on the issue is draining because it is not yielding them the political capital they had planned. If indeed South Africa was genuine about fighting for the rights of the vulnerable people around the world, they could have started with their population, wherein 14 million people are living in dire poverty, not knowing what they would eat the following day. A country where quite a sizable youth are unemployed. The country that experiences 62 murders per day for the whole year, a number that is unmatched throughout the world, we are the murder capital. Still, the political leadership ignores what is affecting their people. Mokgatlhe is a political analyst and consultant.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Remarkable International Court of Justice advisory opinion gives legal muscle to climate accountability
The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support and makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a remarkable advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The world's highest court left no doubt that the duty of states to protect the climate are binding under UN climate treaties, and international law more broadly. Among the most striking elements are that major emitters can be held liable for climate reparations; that the 1.5°C goal under the Paris Agreement is legally binding; and that the statehood of small islands, which with sea-level rise might literally go under water, is protected. The 140-page advisory opinion itself is non-binding, but points to what is binding under climate treaties and broader law, internationally and locally. Responsibility and accountability for climate change are complex, but not so complex as to exclude suing a state for a wrongful act or breach of obligation. Harm can be attributed to such a breach, and the responsible state is under a duty to compensate. But how this plays out depends on whether the country has committed an internationally wrongful act, and on the facts of each case. My take is that the basis for litigation is stronger now. That said, how a specific court — say, in South Africa — would move from a breach of obligation to a compensatory award involves many steps. Major emitters across the world should take note. Eskom's bizarre move to 'decouple' the decommissioning of coal from its just energy transition plan will not measure up to stringent due diligence. And Sasol may well have to defend its massive greenhouse gas emissions and the cutting of funding for its own emission reduction roadmap in court. Advances in attribution science The ICJ finds that responsibility for 'internationally wrongful acts' can be established in principle, with apportionment depending on the facts of each case. The advisory opinion builds on advances in attribution science. The court distinguishes scientific attribution from legal attribution: science evaluates relative contributions and quantifies confidence levels. Courts attach responsibility to a state for its actions or omissions. The wrongful acts are not the emission of greenhouse gases per se, but the breach of climate and customary obligations. Importantly, the ICJ sees greenhouse gases emissions in other countries as relevant. So when vulnerable people sue a government for failing to act on climate, the emissions of other countries can be used in determining responsibility. For reparations to be awarded, a causal link must be established, says the advisory opinion. This is complex but possible. The ICJ acknowledges that causation in climate cases is more indirect than for local pollution, but not impossible. Attribution science will be crucial in specific cases, 'in concreto', as the ICJ seems fond of saying. Forms of reparation include restitution, compensation, and satisfaction. Expect more claims following this ICJ advisory opinion. Nationally determined contributions are how countries commit to actions under the 2015 Paris Agreement, and this year countries are preparing their second nationally determined contributions. The ICJ argues that while content is nationally determined, there are limits to discretion on how little countries can do. That seems good; some have taken national autonomy to extremes. The advisory opinion makes strong points that nationally determined contributions must show 'progression' and the 'highest possible ambition'. The court says that nationally determined contributions, taken together, must be capable of realising its objectives. By this, the advisory opinion means keeping the 1.5°C target alive, quite correctly. But climate is a problem of overusing a global commons, the atmosphere. That means only collective action, by all, can limit global warming levels. How individual countries connect to the collective effort depends on time, space (what others do), and therefore equity. However, the ICJ does not apply equity operationally to nationally determined contributions, which not only would have strengthened the opinion, but is also consistent with Paris Agreement provisions. Puzzling lapse This lapse is puzzling, as the advisory opinion generally strongly affirms the principle of equity, and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The advisory opinion clarifies that, adding 'in the light of different national circumstances' makes common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities dynamic. The core principle applies, and how it is applied changes as countries' circumstances evolve. With the ICJ's strong legal basis for applying common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, it will be important to apply equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in practice. The advisory opinion strongly emphasises the obligations of all states to mitigation. The ICJ is clear on fossil fuels, citing scientific consensus as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that they are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. The advisory opinion addresses both production and consumption. The decision from the global stocktake on transitioning away from fossil fuels is now a key component of states' mitigation obligations. States must implement domestic mitigation measures to achieve their nationally determined contributions. Failure to act — whether by granting exploration licences or providing subsidies — can constitute an internationally wrongful act, according to the advisory opinion. Countries also have an obligation to regulate private actors as a matter of due diligence. Again, this provides a strong legal basis for court cases against fossil fuel producers and consumers – and the latter includes all of us. The ICJ rejects the idea that climate treaties are a 'lex specialis' that excludes other rules. It finds no 'actual inconsistency' or 'discernible intention' to displace customary international law. This means even the US, despite President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, is not off the hook. Obligations apply to all states, whether or not they are parties to climate treaties. The legal term is erga omnes, here meaning every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. If a non-party state does not cooperate, it bears the full burden of demonstrating that its policies conform to customary obligations. On adaptation, the advisory opinion outlines obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. However, it is less specific on what stringent due diligence would mean in practice, other than for mitigation. The advisory opinion does, however, extend the basis for action on loss and damage. The ICJ notes that Paris Article 8 on loss and damage will not lead to liability or compensation. However, the Agreement is not a 'lex specialis', and so while there is considerable contention about states being liable for compensation from climate change impacts, the advisory opinion opens the door for using customary international law in climate litigation. Due diligence The advisory opinion strongly promotes a stringent standard of due diligence for preventing significant harm to the climate system. This heightened vigilance is required because of the seriousness and universal character of the climate threat. The standard varies depending on a state's capabilities, available scientific knowledge, risk of harm, and urgency. It requires an 'assessment in concreto '. The advisory opinion is not legally binding nor does it determine specifics. In South Africa, our 2024 Climate Change Act has as one of its objects to 'give effect to the Republic's international commitments and obligations in relation to climate change'. We have already chosen to take obligations seriously in our own law. On finance, the ICJ is quite brief but potentially very impactful. The advisory opinion is clear that finance obligations under Paris Article 9 must be implemented in the context of achieving the objectives in Article 2 — those include the temperature goal and financial flows. I read that as supporting the notion that if we want climate mitigation consistent with the 1.5°C target, we need finance commensurate with 1.5°C. The court said actual levels can be evaluated against the capacity of developed countries and the needs of developing countries. That finding will no doubt be debated in climate negotiations, as will the advisory opinion as a whole. Hopefully, countries will be more willing to agree in negotiations, knowing that if they do not, they may be sued. In sum, the advisory opinion is a legal milestone. Conceived by law students from small islands, it gathered wider support. The ICJ makes a very strong legal case for climate accountability. The world's highest court found that the 1.5°C goal is legally binding – the implications for action on mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage and support are very far reaching. Every country owes it to the global community to protect the climate. And private entities can expect stronger regulation of emissions. The basis for litigation is stronger now, including claims for reparations and failure to phase out fossil fuel. Courts across the world will be guided by the advisory opinion and must apply stringent standards of due diligence. As they do so, equity and ambition, informed by the best available science, should remain fundamental bases. DM Harald Winkler works as a professor at the University of Cape Town's School of Economics. He writes in his personal capacity.
Eyewitness News
7 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Hunger must never be 'weapon of war', UN chief tells Africa food summit
ADDIS ABABA - UN chief Antonio Guterres on Monday said food must not be used as a weapon of war as world leaders gathered for a food summit in Africa, where 280 million people face chronic hunger. The African Union urged donors to provide greater support for the world's poorest continent, which is struggling with poverty, unrest and the effects of climate change. A new report co-authored by several United Nations agencies found global hunger fell slightly in 2024 thanks to progress in Asia and South America. But 8.2% of the world - an estimated 638 to 720 million people - still faced hunger last year, and the situation was worsening, particularly in Africa, where the figure is 20.2%. "Hunger fuels instability and undermines peace. We must never accept hunger as a weapon of war," Antonio Guterres told the UN Food Systems Summit in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa via video link. "Climate change is disrupting harvests, supply chains and humanitarian aid," he said. He highlighted the worsening crises in Sudan and Gaza. The World Health Organization has warned that malnutrition in the occupied Palestinian territory has reached "alarming levels" since Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza on March 2. In late May, Israel began allowing a trickle of aid to enter, but more than 100 NGOs have warned that "mass starvation" is spreading. MILLIONS GOING HUNGRY The summit takes place against the backdrop of aid cuts by the United States and other Western nations that are badly affecting much of the developing world. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, head of the African Union's executive commission, told the summit that food insecurity was on the rise across Africa, blaming "climate shocks, conflicts and economic disruptions". "At this crucial moment, how many children and mothers on the continent are sleeping hungry? Millions, certainly," he said. Youssouf said more than 280 million Africans were malnourished, with "nearly 3.4 million... on the brink of famine" and some 10 million displaced by drought, floods and cyclones. He urged AU member states to devote 10% of their gross domestic product to agriculture to help foster "nutritional resilience". "But we cannot do this alone. We call on our partners to honour their commitments to finance and support African solutions," he said. 'NOT GOOD NEWS' The UN report made clear how far there was to go to meet its goal of ending world hunger by 2030. Current projections suggest some 512 million people will still be undernourished by the end of the decade, 60% of them in Africa. "Global hunger figures have slightly improved compared to 2022 and 2023," Alvaro Lario, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, told AFP. "But we have not come back to the levels of five years ago. This is not very good news." Four of the worst five countries for food security are in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia. The UN report highlights "persistent inequalities", with women and rural communities most affected, and the gap widening further over the previous year. "Despite adequate global food production, millions of people go hungry or are malnourished because safe and nutritious food is not available, not accessible or, more often, not affordable," it said. It found the response to price spikes between 2021 and 2023 was "more coordinated, informed and restrained" than the previous inflationary shock during the 2007-08 financial crisis. Some 2.3 billion people had to occasionally skip a meal in 2024 and are considered moderately or severely food insecure - 335 million more than in 2019.
