Talk:Advisory opinion on Western Sahara

Untitled
Below is an excerpt from the report published by the UN visiting mission in 1975. I think it proves that the UN mission found WS was in favour of independence: "Owing to the large measure of cooperation which it received from the Spanish authorities, the Mission was able, despite the shortness of its stay in the Territory, to visit virtually all the main population centers and to ascertain the views of the ovverwhelming majority of their inhabitants. At every place visited, the Mission was met by mass political demonstrations and had numerous private meetings with representatives of every section of the Saharan community. From all these, it became evident to the Mission that there was an overwhelming consensus among Saharans within the Territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country.... "The Mission believes, in the light of what it witnessed in the Territory, especially the mass demonstrations of support for one movement, the Frente Polisario..., that its visit served as a catalyst to bring into the open political forces and pressures which had previously been largely submerged. It was all the more significant to the Mission that this came as a surprise to the Spanish authorities who, until then, had only been partly aware of the profound political awakening of the population." (my bolds) Arre 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Here is the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975. Daryou 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) those are two different UN opinions. there was a UN visiting mission, and THEN came the ICJ verdict. please read the text again, you'll see that this sentence refers to the visiting mission, which i quoted above. Arre 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give me your source please? Daryou 00:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. i copied that text from somewhere on wsahara.net, but the original is from the UN visiting mission's report. stop removing this from the page. it is two different texts, the verdict and the visiting mission, and you're confusing them. Arre 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't give me your neutral source, such a thing have to be in UN reports. Daryou 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * well, uh, since that is a quote from a un report, it is by definition in un reports... Arre 20:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2. oh, sorry, you hadn't removed it this time... my mistake :o)  Arre 00:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting your UN evidence, By the way I made a UN search and the only UN report I found with "Saharans mission overwhelming integration neighbouring country" key words is this one, it isn't about ICJ.
 * Western Sahara isn't for SADR what Sweden is Kingdom of Sweden. Otherwise there won't be any conflict.
 * Daryou 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. what UN evidence? of what? i am sorry, but i just can't understand what you are asking for. please, again, note that the ICJ verdict and the visiting mission's report are TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. 2. your second comment (sadr-sweden) doesn't seem to be related to anything on this talk page or in the article. Arre 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 1. ah, then I see. well, i've seen that quote (and other quotes from the report) in many places, so there's no question of it being made up. but if you want the whole report, i don't think its on the internet since it's so old. except of course as quotes from various publications (however, if you find the whole report out there somewhere, please let me know). in hodges its listed as "United Nations Visiting Mission to Spanish Sahara, 1975, in General Assembly Official Records, 30th Session, Supplement 23, UN DocumentA/10023/Rev". it was a three-man delegation headed by simeon aké. 2. those countries recognize WS precisely as an independent, sovereign state (albeit occupied) and SADR as its legitimate government. that is why they (south africa, nigeria, east timor) have diplomatic relations with SADR on a state-to-state level, whereas most other countries (such as morocco, USA, sweden) only have that with the SADR as a party of the WS conflict or as a non-governmental organization. Arre 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I made a research about the report of the UN visiting mission but I didn't find any thing. If you have a  UN link give it to me.
 * 2) My second comment is about your sentence in the article: "At the same time, Western Sahara (as the SADR) is recognized as an independent state...", WS isn't SADR. And SADR isn't an independant state. The 44 contries have diplomatic relations with SADR, they don't recognize it as an ndependant state. Daryou 23:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I confess that I have serious doubts about the athenticity of this quote. This report should be in the UN documents (there is 50 years old documents like this one. And I can't verify the book you are talking about. Can you give me a neutral web page referencing this quote?
 * WS isn't an independant state even under polisario's POV, that's a fact; the states witch recognize SADR recognize it as a government of exile. Daryou 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Answer
 * Please, Daryou. I have given you a quote, I have given you a book, I have even given you the UNGA archive number. You've given me nothing except stating that you don't agree with the content of the report.
 * The mission toured Western Sahara between 12-19 May, as a result of GAR 3292. This is the paragraph that authorized it:
 * 5. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to keep the situation in the Territory under review, including the sending of a visiting mission to the territory, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session.
 * (It is referred to again "with satisfaction" in the following GA meeting)
 * The Aké report is quoted or referenced in all Western Sahara litterature I have ever read. Can you suggest some serious research on this issue that doesn't bring it up?
 * I will not accept that you delete this again, until you give at least a reason, other than that you have some unspecified "serious doubts". I will now revert this back, and please bring something of your own to the table before deleting it again.
 * 'Exile government/state: Even Morocco recognizes the Sahrawi Republic as an exile government. The difference is that these other governments recognize Western Sahara's claim for independence, as a state. I will change the wording to reduce the chances for a misunderstanding, but reinsert the general meaning.
 * Arre 17:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This quote dosen't have any thing to do in this article witch is talking precisely about the ICJ advisory opinion.
 * I googled around your sentence "overwhelming consensus among Saharans within the territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country" . I found 3 pages: 2 of them aren't neutral and the third don't even contain this sentence.
 * You're wrong; Morocco doesn't recognize the Sahrawi Republic as an exile government, Morocco doesn't recognize at all this entity; and WS isn't a country but a territory; the independance of WS is the claim of Polisario and SADR not of WS. Daryou 19:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The quote is obviously relevant in an article that presents the background to the UN's ICJ verdict. How can you even suggest otherwise? Is this simply about changing from disputing the quote to disputing its relevance, when the first tactic failed?
 * I suggest you read what I wrote above, consider examining the sources, and possibly even click the link I provided, instead of googling for info. The mission has undoubtedly existed (as you can read in the UNGA protocols) and its conclusion I have quoted; I have plenty of other quotes from it in books on the table beside me (Hodges, etc). This is about as reasonable as me disputing the existence of king Mohammad VI unless you make him come shake my hand...
 * The independence of WS in the form of SADR is recognized by 44 countries, which is what the article says. That is how the political recognition of these 44 countries contradict Moroccan policy: while Morocco acknowledges that there is an organization or entity called the SADR, but disputes everything it stands for, these 44 nations recognize it as the rightful government of Western Sahara, i.e. recognize Western Sahara's claim to independence. I don't understand what you're arguing over. Arre 19:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't work, I'm ready to accept this sentence if you give me just one neutral working link, as I can't read your book. And I still think it isn't relevant to the article, using this quote is political.
 * I agree with your wording, but remember that Morocco doesn't recognize that SADR does ever exist. Best regards. Daryou 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a copy of the document. The page is obviously not neutral, but the document is exactly the same as on the UN site (its the same pdf). Check for example on the first page, lower right corner - "with satisfaction" etc: http://www.wsahara.net/UN/ga/res3458.pdf
 * Well, that is not in the article, so that we really don't have to argue about. (But I would say that Morocco does acknowledge the EXISTENCE of the SADR, although not the LEGITIMACY of it. Just as Polisario acknowledges the EXISTENCE of Moroccan control in parts of WS, but not the LEGITIMACY of it.) Arre 20:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you ever read the document you linked above? I don't find any reference to your quote.
 * It's not our subject of discussion, but you are completely wrong, I'm ready to give you one million dollar if you give just one evidence that Morocco recognizes that the SADR exists. :-). Regrads. Daryou 20:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Answers
 * It references the existence of the visiting mission, which you doubted. The report itself is not included in that link, and I cannot find it on the UN web pages (I did fínd out at which meetings it was presented and discussed, but protocols of those are not on the Internet). However, I have given you everything that's on the Internet and more: including a quote from the report (above) which substantiates the summarization in the text, and the UN archive number (feel free to order a copy), and I have also sourced it with what I believe is the most widely acclaimed piece of research on WS ever, namely the Hodges book.
 * There are several quotes from the report in that book, including the one above, and if you're interested I can type a few of them for you. Several of them are even more explicit about Polisario support and popular opposition to annexation.
 * My point is, there is simply no basis for your deletions of this, however much you disagree politically with what the report says. Okay if I reinstate it now?
 * On the existence-of-SADR-debate: Morocco has talked about the SADR at several occasions, and talked to it at least a couple of times. Unless you believe the Moroccan negotiators were discussing with ghosts, they certainly negotiated with something, no matter how much they oppose its claims. It is similar to how Polisario does not recognize any form of legitimacy for the Moroccan occupation, but they are certainly aware of its existance; that is how they are able to campaign against it... :-)

Arre 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Answers Anyway, here are some further quotes from him (same book, Western Sahara: The Roots of a Desert War, Lawrence & Hill Co., USA, 1983). Any misspellings are mine, since I typed them myself:
 * I didn't doubt the visiting mission, I doubted your quote. Actually there is no neutral internet evidence that this sentence exists in the UN visiting mission report. I wonder why reports of 1945 are in the UN site but not you report? I can't read your book and I don't know if Hodges is neutral in this affair, and after all he don't own the monopoly of truth.
 * Morocco negociated with the Polisario not the SADR. When Morocco speaks about SADR it always add "this imaginary entity" or something like that. Friendly. Daryou 11:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The United Nations has not published all its documents on the Internet, although most of the files from the late nineties and onwards, plus important documents from before that, are available. You have posted a list of Security Council resolutions, and of course THEY are on there, but a little-known report on a decolonization dispute from 1975 apparently is not. However, I have presented numerous quotes from, and references to, the report, taken from different sources (see below for more). If you want the full many-tens-of-pages-document, to look for misquotes, you now have the archive number. Be my guest, give them a call.
 * Hodges is, as I said, the expert on Western Sahara. Quotes from the report, especially including the one above or parts of it, exist in virtually all studies of the WS conflict, including his. If want to discard Hodges' publications because you haven't read them, please show me some other serious work on Western Sahara that contradicts him. And even if he was a biased researcher, which I stress that he is not, that still wouldn't change the content of the quotes!
 * "During its visit to the territory," [the UN mission] reported, "the mission did not encounter any groups supporting the territorial claims of neighbouring countries and consequently had no say of estimating the extent of their support, which appeared to be submerged by the massive demonstrations in favour of independence. (Hodges, p. 201)
 * ''Although the mission met privately with a number of groups in the northern region representing PUNS," the UN envoys noted, "it did not witness any separate public demonstrations in support of that party. This was in marked contrast to the Frente Polisario, whose supporters from the onset appeared en masse carrying the flags and emblems of their movement. It was not until the mission visited the southern region that PUNS, following the example of its opponents, organized mass demonstrations to greet the mission at each place visited." At Villa Cisneros and other settlements in the south, Polisario and PUNS supporters staged separate, rival demonstrations, but "although both groups mustered a large number of supporters," the mission noted, "the preponderance was clearly in favour of the Frente Polisario." The placards of Polisario and PUNS were "similar," for "both demanded complete independence for the territory and opposed integration with neighbouring countries." (Hodges, p. 199)
 * Footnotes mark these quotes as taken from p. 62 and 67, respectively, of the UN report. PUNS was a legal Spanish-backed party that had been created in 1975 to draw support from Polisario. Villa Cisneros is the Spanish name for Dakhla in southern WS.


 * But okay, let's not rely entirely on Hodges. Here's a translation from Claes Olsson, Avbruten avkolonisering. FN och problemen att avkolonisera Västsahara, Global Publications Foundation, 1997 (Swedish, "Disrupted decolonization. The UN and the problems of decolonizing Western Sahara"):
 * The report explained that "at every visited place the delegation was met by extensive political demonstrations and had many private meetings with representatives of every part of Sahrawi society. Through all of these meeting, it became completely clear to the delegation that there was an overwhelming consensus among the Sahrawis within the territory in favor of independence and ageainst integration with any bordering country... The delegation is convinced that, based on what we have seen in the territory, especially the mass demonstrations in support of the Polisario movement ... its visit has served as a catalyst for the open political forces and pressures who have before been substantially suppressed... a public request, regardless of its form, in the territory to examine the majority opinion, must be based on the participation of all Sahrawis who belong to the territory. It is therefore important to determine who is and who is not a Sahrawi belonging to the territory. The concerned and interested parties have reached an agreement that this issue should be referred to an expert commission set up by the United Nations..."
 * As you can see, this quote includes parts of the one above (although the wording is different, since this is my own translation from another Swedish translation).


 * Jarat Chopra (United Nations Determination of the Western Saharan Self, Oslo 1994) also references the report. He quotes the parts above (noted as paragraphs 202-203 of the report) and also some more, but I hope it is not necessary to type them again...
 * The CLAIHR (Canadian Lawyers' Association for International Human Rights) summarizes the 1975 visiting mission thus (especially note the quote), in one of their long reports on visits to Moroccan-controlled WS and Tindouf:
 * 1975 UN Mission to the Region
 * In May-June 1975, a UN visiting mission to Western Sahara travelled extensively in the territory itself, Morocco and Algeria. The participants interviewed local leaders and government officials as well as refugees living inside and outside the territory. The mission found that "[t]here was an overwhelming consensus within the Territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country".
 * The mission also concluded that the POLISARIO accurately represented Sahrawi opinion on the issue of self-determination and political independence, and found no other political movements of significance. The POLISARIO, at that time, appeared to constitute a true expression of the will of the Sahrawi people.

Okay? This must be clear now. Those little mentions of the UN mission's conclusions are probably the most well-sourced sentences on Wikipedia right now :-) ... I will accordingly reenter it. If you want to delete them again, I am going to ask some one to come over and look at this dispute, since I think I have presented near-ridiculous amounts of proof. Please note that I'm not angry, hostile or upset, or anything, but I really can't keep arguing like this, if you don't present any constructive evidence for why this must not be included. I just don't have the time to write page after page on this if it's simply a question of denial. Okay? No hard feelings, but that's how I see this. Oh, and I almost forgot! :-)
 * Morocco-SADR/Polisario-recognition: If the Moroccan diplomats really thought they were negotiating with something that only existed in their own imagination, then they should seek medical help...
 * What I'm saying is that there is a difference between "recognizing" the SADR or Polisario (they are both just as recognized or non-recognized by Morocco) as a political entity with legitimate claims (how Morocco views France and Algeria) and "recognizing" it as an existing group or party to a conflict, but withholding political recognition and/or cooperation (how Morocco views Israel and Polisario).
 * Do you see my point? I'm not trying to say Morocco recognizes Polisario politically in any way, because they don't.

Best regards, Arre 00:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that you are confusing polisario and SADR: Morocco maybe recognizes the existence of the Polisario front, but not its self-proclaimed republic. Daryou 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit war
Deletions Why do you keep on deleting relevant material? Fayssal, since you protected this page, will you intervene here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only differences I see are:
 * The mention of a certain mission that had absolutely nothing to do the ICJ Advisory Opinion on WS. I don't see what it has to do here when it is not related to it, and has its own article.
 * The allegation that the Madrid Accords are secret, when they are found on the net, and specifically on many pro-polisario sites. Unless the word "secret" needs re-defintion.
 * Some minor edits at the beginning of the article, where koavf tries to minimize the role of the Moroccan Liberation army, and deletes the fact that they drove the Spanish forces away from most of Spanish sahara up till Rio de Oro. Why do you want to remove that koavf. It will stay there.
 * koavf removes the WS category, while this is related to WS, another sign he is just blindly reverting.
 * So, what is all this fuzz for?--A Jalil 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This again, huh?
 * The mission is not unrelated, as they turned in their report and gave it to the Court the day before their decision.
 * The text of the Madrid Accords are secret. Show me a resource that has their full text.
 * How can you claim that the UN visiting mission is unrelated, but the MLA is particularly relevant? That's ridiculous. The role of the MLA is far less important to this article than the Spanish Sahara visiting mission.
 * All articles should be in subcategories of the main category for a country. That is, this article should be under, for instance, Category:History of Western Sahara, not Category:Western Sahara. The only article that should be in the latter category is the main article.
 * That is the "fuzz." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417142214/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/005/32/IMG/NR000532.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/005/32/IMG/NR000532.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Gta 6
grand theft auto 6 31.4.150.139 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)