Latest news with #NationalInterest
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Building Canada Act leaves much open to interpretation on Indigenous consultation, says lawyer
An Anishinaabe lawyer says "fuller," "meaningful" engagement needs to happen with Indigenous Peoples if the federal government wants to make the right decisions on projects under the new Building Canada Act. Sara Mainville, a partner at JFK Law and former chief of Couchiching First Nation in northwestern Ontario, said under the Building Canada Act, once a project is deemed in the national interest, it would be difficult to roll it back. The act was passed last week and aims to speed up projects of national interest, including energy development projects, by allowing special designated projects to bypass some federal laws. Mainville said under the legislation, Indigenous groups potentially impacted by a project should be part of the process deciding if it is in fact of national interest. "They have to make the right decision each and every time," said Mainville. "They could only do that with fuller engagement, meaningful engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people." The bill says that among factors that may be considered in deciding if a project is within the nation's interest are whether it advances "the interests of Indigenous peoples" and if it contributes "to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change." Mainville said this leaves a lot to be interpreted. "Advancement of Indigenous interests is such generic language, like what does that mean in a real way?" she said. "This is really going to be for the courts to decide, unfortunately, unless there's some real markers put in place." Mainville said if processes are not in the legislation, there's no guarantee they will happen. "This idea of 'just trust us, we're gonna get this right,' it's asking too much of First Nations with real interests in this area that potentially is going to be impacted by this pipeline," said Mainville. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith spoke to CBC Radio's The Early Edition Wednesday about reviving a plan to build a pipeline to bring oilsands crude to B.C.'s north coast for export to Asia, with the endpoint in Prince Rupert, B.C. An organization representing the Gitga'at, Gitxaała, Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo Xai'Xais, Metlakatla, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv First Nations told CBC Indigenous last week that they wouldn't be in favour of any new pipelines in their region. Smith said on The Early Edition that bitumen, the type of petroleum mined in the oil sands, is the single most valuable product in Alberta, worth about $9 trillion. "No one leaves $9 trillion in the ground; we have to find a way to get it to market," said Smith. Smith said it would be essential for any linear infrastructure project to have Indigenous ownership across the line. "I would just ask for people to have an open mind and see that if we can identify the issues that are causing concern, work through them one at a time, I think that we would be stronger as a country," said Smith. Rashid Sumaila, a professor at the University of British Columbia and Canada research chair in interdisciplinary oceans and fisheries economics, studies the overall cost of projects like pipelines on society, taking into account impacts on the environment and societal implications now and for future generations. In 2012, Sumaila estimated that a major oil spill cleanup on B.C.'s North Coast could cost up to $9.6 billion, and cost the region's commercial fisheries, port, ferry transportation and tourism industries more than $300 million. Sumaila said other costs are intangible, like the impact on First Nations culture if there is a reduction in salmon. "What's the value of that? That doesn't go into the big company calculations," said Sumaila. Sumaila said there are benefits to projects like pipelines in the short term, like profit and jobs for individuals, but the long term negative costs are usually left to the larger society to deal with. "I think we need to zoom really sharply on the fact that there's usually a disconnect between those who gain and those who bear the cost," said Sumaila. Mainville said cumulative impact is a tool First Nations in B.C. could potentially use to stop unwanted resource developments. A B.C. Supreme Court decision in 2021 found that cumulative impacts of extensive industrial resource development unjustifiably infringed on Blueberry River First Nations' treaty rights, leaving its members unable to exercise their rights on much of their traditional territory. As a result the court ordered the province to prohibit further development in the area that would infringe on Blueberry First Nations' treaty rights. "Similar thing can happen along these coastal regions where there's just too much development," said Mainville. The federal government has said the prime minister will meet with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis in the coming weeks, with the first meeting happening on July 17 with First Nations.
CBC
03-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Building Canada Act leaves much open to interpretation on Indigenous consultation, says lawyer
An Anishinaabe lawyer says "fuller," "meaningful" engagement needs to happen with Indigenous Peoples if the federal government wants to make the right decisions on projects under the new Building Canada Act. Sara Mainville, a partner at JFK Law and former chief of Couchiching First Nation in northwestern Ontario, said under the Building Canada Act, once a project is deemed in the national interest, it would be difficult to roll it back. The act was passed last week and aims to speed up projects of national interest, including energy development projects, by allowing special designated projects to bypass some federal laws. Mainville said under the legislation, Indigenous groups potentially impacted by a project should be part of the process deciding if it is in fact of national interest. "They have to make the right decision each and every time," said Mainville. "They could only do that with fuller engagement, meaningful engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people." The bill says that among factors to be considered in deciding if a project is within the nation's interest are whether it advances "the interests of Indigenous peoples" and if it contributes "to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change." Mainville said this leaves a lot to be interpreted. "Advancement of Indigenous interests is such generic language, like what does that mean in a real way?" she said. "This is really going to be for the courts to decide, unfortunately, unless there's some real markers put in place." Mainville said if processes are not in the legislation, there's no guarantee they will happen. "This idea of 'just trust us, we're gonna get this right,' it's asking too much of First Nations with real interests in this area that potentially is going to be impacted by this pipeline," said Mainville. Impacts of pipelines on B.C.'s north coast Alberta Premier Danielle Smith spoke to CBC Radio's The Early Edition Wednesday about reviving a plan to build a pipeline to bring oilsands crude to B.C.'s north coast for export to Asia, with the endpoint in Prince Rupert, B.C. An organization representing the Gitga'at, Gitxaała, Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo Xai'Xais, Metlakatla, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv First Nations told CBC Indigenous last week that they wouldn't be in favour of any new pipelines in their region. Smith said on The Early Edition that bitumen, the type of petroleum mined in the oil sands, is the single most valuable product in Alberta, worth about $9 trillion. "No one leaves $9 trillion in the ground; we have to find a way to get it to market," said Smith. Smith said it would be essential for any linear infrastructure project to have Indigenous ownership across the line. "I would just ask for people to have an open mind and see that if we can identify the issues that are causing concern, work through them one at a time, I think that we would be stronger as a country," said Smith. Rashid Sumaila, a professor at the University of British Columbia and Canada research chair in interdisciplinary oceans and fisheries economics, studies the overall cost of projects like pipelines on society, taking into account impacts on the environment and societal implications now and for future generations. In 2012, Sumaila estimated that a major oil spill cleanup on B.C.'s North Coast could cost up to $9.6 billion, and cost the region's commercial fisheries, port, ferry transportation and tourism industries more than $300 million. Sumaila said other costs are intangible, like the impact on First Nations culture if there is a reduction in salmon. "What's the value of that? That doesn't go into the big company calculations," said Sumaila. Sumaila said there are benefits to projects like pipelines in the short term, like profit and jobs for individuals, but the long term negative costs are usually left to the larger society to deal with. "I think we need to zoom really sharply on the fact that there's usually a disconnect between those who gain and those who bear the cost," said Sumaila. Mainville said cumulative impact is a tool First Nations in B.C. could potentially use to stop unwanted resource developments. A B.C. Supreme Court decision in 2021 found that cumulative impacts of extensive industrial resource development unjustifiably infringed on Blueberry River First Nations' treaty rights, leaving its members unable to exercise their rights on much of their traditional territory. As a result the court ordered the province to prohibit further development in the area that would infringe on Blueberry First Nations' treaty rights. "Similar thing can happen along these coastal regions where there's just too much development," said Mainville. The federal government has said the prime minister will meet with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis in the coming weeks, with the first meeting happening on July 17 with First Nations.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate: The 3D solution for India's Pakistan problem
Last week, National Interest teased a sequel: The perils of self-hyphenation. What does this mean? For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes: 'You cannot choose your neighbours.' India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. They are in a tight strategic alliance, which is today perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy, as during Operation Sindoor, or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from Western powers (read the United States). Progress on this was slow, until the first Bill Clinton term, and then picked up. In the two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a Western leader combined visits to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Mr Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. The Americans used a different description, saying that their view on the subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle — that henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council Resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Mr Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully, what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Mr Trump takes a chill pill on the subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Mr Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's), political discourse, and not necessarily after Op Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring, compared to China, 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: That's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: We've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. India's larger strategic plan of these three decades is sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan, as you've moved into a different orbit, and are poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring — especially since 2019, after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage where even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan army its pre-eminence there. See how Op Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India — where its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat, as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem.
CBC
14-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
Liberals see a need for speed on major projects bill. Critics warn that's risky
Social Sharing Liberals are attempting to bulldoze their mega projects bill through Parliament, according to critics who say the legislation interferes with Indigenous rights, environmental protection and democracy itself. The government's One Canadian Economy Act is generating controversy inside and outside the House of Commons, with some arguing it confers king-like powers to rush projects deemed in the national interest to completion. The Liberals say the bill is intended to fast-track major projects as Canada faces the urgency of a disruptive Donald Trump presidency. "We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadian jobs are at risk. Canadians' livelihoods are at risk and, quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk," said Tim Hodgson, the natural resources and energy minister, at a news conference Thursday. "We need to do things that we have not done in a long time, in time frames we have not done since the end of World War II." What's in the bill? The One Canadian Economy Act, or Bill C-5, will create a list of major nation-building projects. After a designated project is added to the list, the government will publish a document outlining all the conditions that builders must follow. A single designated minister — likely Dominic LeBlanc in this government — would be responsible for listing the projects and issuing the conditions document. "For far too long major projects, whether energy transmission lines, critical mineral developments, pipelines or clean technology projects, have been stalled by assessments, challenges and overlapping and duplicative regulations," said Leblanc on Friday during a procedural debate in the House Friday. What gets on the list? The prime minister has provided examples of projects that could be included on the list based on recommendations from Canada's premiers. Ports, mines, renewable energy and oil and gas pipelines could make the list, he said. The legislation offers the following criteria: Strengthening Canada's autonomy, resilience and security. Providing economic or other benefits to Canada. Having a high likelihood of successful execution. Advancing the interests of Indigenous Peoples. Contributing to clean growth and to meeting Canada's climate objectives. The legislation gives the government broad discretion to apply all or none of these criteria, which worries Conservatives who still seem generally supportive of the bill. "These concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for each project," said Shannon Stubbs, the Conservative critic for energy and natural resources, during debate on the bill on Friday. 'Leap before you look' assessments Some academics are concerned about what happens if the bill's broad powers to speed up projects aren't used carefully. "That could be good for the economy if it is used wisely," said University of Ottawa law and economics professor Stewart Elgie. "But it could be bad for the environment if it is used poorly." For major infrastructure and development projects on the list, such as hydroelectric dams, ports and large-scale mines, the bill removes the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's authority to limit them. But it does place limits on the minister's ability to fast-track cross-border pipelines and nuclear reactors. It states the minister cannot issue the approval document until both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canada Energy Regulator are "satisfied that issuing the document will not compromise the health or safety of persons." However, the bill suggests the power of all federal regulators and departments is constrained, as it states that every opinion and decision formed about a project once listed must be "in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part." This creates what some academics are calling a "leap before you look" approach that turns the federal environmental review's informed decision-making "on its head." Henry VIII clauses Those same researchers also note that a legislative tool — Henry VIII clauses, named after the autocratic King Henry VIII of England — are tucked into the bill. WATCH | PM Mark Carney says 'more will be done' on energy: Carney says 'more will be done' on energy, but conversation isn't all about pipelines 17 days ago Duration 3:52 Asked by CBC's Power & Politics host David Cochrane about the separatist sentiment in Alberta, Prime Minister Mark Carney says his government is 'committed' to working with Canadians across the country. Proposed legislation grants the Carney government, or future governments, the authority to exempt pipelines, mines or other listed projects from any law or government regulation. Near the very end of the 18-page bill, it states that cabinet can exempt national-interest projects from not only environmental laws but also acts of Parliament. "The combined effect of Sections 21, 22 and 23 gives cabinet an unconstrained ability to make regulations that not only alter the application of other federal regulations … but also to alter the operation of virtually all laws duly passed by Parliament, including outright exemption," as noted in a post co-authored by University of Calgary law professors David Wright and Martin Olszynski. What about Indigenous rights? The proposed law commits to consulting with provincial and territorial governments, as well as Indigenous Peoples, before a project is listed and a conditions document is issued or altered. Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty on Thursday told reporters that the bill does not "do away with impact assessments" and there are "multiple points" where First Nations and other groups can bring forward their concerns. "The prime minister has been clear: these projects will be selected if the communities wish to participate," she said. Nevertheless, a national Indigenous group has raised concerns about a lack of consultation on the bill itself and what that could mean for the prospect of ongoing consultation. "Unfortunately, the government provided First Nations only seven days to respond to an outline of the bill and did not provide the full text (a consultative draft) in advance," the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, said in a statement. Likely Conservative backing Conservatives have signalled that they are open to backing the bill, proposing some changes during the House of Commons debate. Stubbs said the party would like to see it go further and faster while calling for a repeal of regulations like the Trudeau-era law that banned the oil tankers from ports or marine installations along British Columbia's north coast. "Canadians deserve a government that backs them. Not a government that blocks them," Stubbs said. However, with C-5's broad powers to sidestep existing laws for approved projects, the tanker ban could be overriden without repealing anything. The Bloc Québécois has said the bill, in theory, could exempt a company building a major project from a range of laws, including the Labour Code, Criminal Code and language laws. The party is calling for more scrutiny of the bill. "How could we go forward with such a huge bill, with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada, without at least doing what we have been elected to do — and that means studying effectively this bill in committee," Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet said. Concerns over bad-faith use The Liberals intend to send the bill to committee for two days of study before hoping to get it passed on Friday. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May takes issue with what she calls an "abbreviated bulldozer time frame." At least one Liberal is calling for changes to the bill, which is supposed to terminate in five years. Vancouver MP Patrick Weiler wants the government to shorten the bill's five-year sunset clause, which he noted would go beyond Trump's term and "at least one more federal election." "We need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government," he said.
Morocco World
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Morocco World
New US Report Sheds Light on Polisario's Regional Threats, Growing Support for Morocco
Rabat – Amid a growing support for Morocco's position on Western Sahara, several reports have surfaced to shed light on the dispute, particularly Polisario's links to terrorism, a situation that undermines the whole region and beyond. The National Interest is among the magazines, research publications, and news outlets that tackled the regional instability the Polisario is instigating as it aligns itself with terrorist groups as well as US adversaries, including Iran. Growing momentum for Morocco Recalling the international chorus in support of Morocco's territorial integrity, the National Interest published a comprehensive analysis authored by Ahmed Sahrawi on Monday, stressing that more and more countries are agreeing with the Moroccan security approach to safeguard its southern provinces in Western Sahara and preventing the region from becoming home to a 'jihadist government.' 'The United Kingdom recently recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, joining the United States, France, and Israel,' the same source said. On June 1, the UK joined the international chorus for the first time, announcing Morocco's Autonomy Plan as the most serious and credible political solution to end the dispute over Western Sahara. With this decision, the country has been added to a list of over 113 countries that share the same perspective and that seek an end to the stagnant issue. Kenya and Ghana recently shared a similar stance amid Algeria's maneuvers to challenge Morocco's territorial integrity and sovereignty over its southern provinces. Algeria's regime harbors the Polisario Front in a deserted area, where freedom of speech and movement are restricted. About 90,000 Sahrawis have been stranded in the region, with many seeking escape but unable to leave due to restricted movement, turning Tindouf into an open-air prison for many. Algeria is still barring a census for the region, due to the presumed fact, as many Sahrawis suggest, that most of the Tindouf residents are Algerians or from other countries and regions like Tuaregs and nationals of neighboring countries, such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and Chad. Former Polisario members, including Mustafa Salma, suggest that as little as 20% of the real Sahrawis were forced to take shelter in the camps. 'The Polisario has, in recent years, aligned itself with some of the most radical actors in the region,' the National Interest wrote, recalling how the region became a breeding ground for 'jihadist recruitment and a nexus for extremist networks operating across the Sahel.' The publication further stressed the well-documented ties between the separatist group and terrorist groups, recalling Adnan Abu al-Walid al-Sahrawi, a former Polisario member who also led the Islamic State in the Greater Sahel before he was killed by French forces in Mali in 2021. The same source also recalled Polisario's breaking of the UN Ceasefire in 2020, when Morocco peacefully intervened to halt Polisario's blockade in Guerguerat near the Mauritanian border, affecting trade relations. The analyst further detailed the multiple threats and attacks the Polisario Front has been carrying out, targeting Moroccan civilians as well as foreign businesses operating in southern provinces since 2021. In May, members of the Polisario Front, including Mustapha Sidi Ali El Bachir, sent their threats to Moroccans, foreign businesses, as well as tourists visiting southern provinces. The Polisario member appeared in a video on May 1, noting that the separatist group is reiterating and confirming that 'in line with Polisario's statement from November 13, 2020, announcing the return to war, any foreign investor or tourist in the Sahara is putting their life at risk.' 'Let the Sahrawi stay away from foreigners and not come telling us they're civilians or innocent. This is not a tourism context, but a wartime context,' he said. Increasing awareness of Polisario's fake activism The National Interest is not the first US-based website to highlight Polisario's threats to the region. In May, The Daily Signal issued a similar comprehensive piece, in which it recalled that high-ranking officials, like Republican Congressman Joe Wilson, have sought to designate the Polisario Front as a terrorist group due to its malicious activities targeting the region's stability. The outlet also criticized the US administration for ignoring Polisario's threats. Notably, the report also mentioned Polisario's armed threats and its unilateral decision to withdraw from the UN-brokered ceasefire in 2020. Like the National interest, the Daily Signal also referenced Iran's support for the Polisario Front through its proxy Hezbollah, which Morocco accused of training and arming the Polisario Front through a collusion with Algeria. 'Polisario's threats rest on a foundation of Algerian sanctuary plus three mutually reinforcing pillars: Iranian military assistance, a growing Russian influence network, and a mature trans-Sahel illicit economy that overlaps with jihadist financing streams,' the Daily Signal wrote. In April, the Washington Post quoted sources who confirmed that Hezbollah trained Polisario to serve and advance its regional interests. 'Over the years, Iran has fostered a wide array of proxy groups to advance its interests,' the report said, quoting a regional official and a third European official who said Iran trained fighters from the 'Algeria-based Polisario Front' that are now detained by Syria's new security forces. In the same month, a report published by the Hudson Institute dismissed Polisario's self-portrayal as a liberation movement, describing the separatist group as a paramilitary organization that functions as 'a destabilizing militia.' Notably, the report, authored by Zineb Riboua, documented how the Polisario's activities 'go far beyond the standard for a terror designation.' Also in the same month, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar Michael Rubin published a piece , urging the UN to cease recognizing the Polisario Front as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, in which he described the group as 'a vestige of the Cold War.' Rubin challenged the international community's stance on Polisario's legitimacy, asserting that 'no one has ever elected them to such a position and no one has given the Sahrawi any say.' Tags: Algeria and the Western SaharaPolisario and Algeria
