Talk:Madrid Accords

Phosphate Claims & Other Details
Substantiation of the Phosphate claim is necessary. Also notice should be made that the published terms of the Accords foresaw a tripartite administration leading to a resolution in keeping with the desires of the local population. The present presentation is mendacious (that is deliberately omits inconvenient facts) at present. (collounsbury 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Exactly. Actually I had hard time (and still have) even adding the fact that there was something called the Madrid Accords in 1975 preceeding the Spanish withdrawl in 1976.


 * Irregulars of the Moroccan Liberation Army. Has there been any regulars in the Moroccan Liberation Army? was it not formed as any armed resistance from civilians?.
 * I think that we should avoid the word irregulars. It does not contribute meaning to the article and was probably taken from a Time Magazine article from 1958 ("The Battle for Aiun"). « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 2007 May 12 03:20 (UTC)


 * radical branch??. What was so radical about the Moroccan Liberation army's southern branch??. The history of Morocco (for those who do not know it) tells us that Spain was treated differently by Moroccan resistance than France. In the North, Abdelkrim and the Rifains inflicted the major military defeat Spain has had in centuries, at Anwal. In the South, the 1958 war has been almost a replica of the North. In both cases, France intervened to help Spain. So what is so radical about the Southern Liberation Army as opposed to the resistance in say, the Rif?.
 * The MLA was fighting in SPANISH MOROCCO, but fighting spilled to SPANISH SAHARA. Well, this is wrong from two sides: firstly, it implies that the fighting in Spanish Sahara was not intentioned, and secondly, that the terms Spanish Mor. and Spanish Sah. are colonial terms and meant nothing to the resistance for which all the Sahara was one and was Moroccan that they tried to liberate for the motherland, Morocco. You (Arre) know surely who these Moroccan resistance "irregulars" were: the father of Mohamed Abdelaziz,...
 * Again citing internal problems as a reason for claiming the Sahara is wrong and easily refutable. Morocco has been claiming the Sahara at its independence, at the time of Mohamed V. So forget about any internal political situation as a reason for Hassan II to claim or intensify the claims. The peak of political opposition to Hassan II was in the mid-60s. After 1972, and 3 years before the start of the sahara conflict, Hassan has never been more powerful.
 * Algerian desire to have an opening on the Atlantic is not only said by Moroccan "commentators". I have a book by Tahar Belkhouja, the Tunisian interior minister who mediated intensely between boumedienne and Hassan II after Amgala war, and he says it clearly and without any "might want", or "perceived" terms. There are many others who say it. If you need sources, I will provide you with some. The most recent visit by Oueld Val of Mauritania to Algeria has seen the signing of an agreement to construct a road from Tindouf to choum. The reason, as the official Algerian presse Service stated is "to alleviate the isolation of the Algerian South-Western Wilayas, and permit Algeria ACCESS to the Atlantic Ocean".
 * The UN view of the Moroccan position: All the diatribe listed is taken from a Polisario site where a legal ADVISOR (a Swede), has said mainly his opinion of the matter. The UN secretary General, representing the UN has described Morocco as the Administrative Power in WESTERN SAHARA. By the way, the Swedish official, Mr. Borell has since been active in lecturing defending the Polisario position. So his opinion is blatantly a personal one. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL UN POSITION.
 * "Algeria viewed this as a way to uphold the UN charter and combat colonialism". This is funny and ridiculous. Where has Algeria been before 1975??, Why has boumedienne not been combatting COLONIALISM against Spain?.
 * Some more minor wording as "Algeria resisted the Madrid Accords". Why "resisted"?. Isn't "opposed" the right term?
 * opposed does seem better here as the Madrid Accords are essentially an idea that one can oppose, but not resist, unless its provisions were imposed upon Algeria. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 2007 May 12 03:28 (UTC)


 * "Mauritanian position was due to the will to deflect Moroccan expansion...": Well, with a minimum IQ, one would see that in any case, and even if Mauritania had asserted control over all of Spanish Sahara, it would still be bordered by Morocco. So, if that is a danger, it would not vanish. Even worse, it would bring the Mauritanian borders closer to the sight of the Moroccan Army.
 * Expelling 25,000 Moroccans. I just want to add that in some cases, the Moroccan husband has been taken to the frontiers while his Algerian wife and children were kept in Algeria. A human disaster with untold proportions. It tells much about the mentalities of some, and the bitterness of Boumedienne. Jean Daniel, the french journalist of Le Nouvel Observateur, wrote that he was at a reception by Boumedienne when came the news that the first Green march participants crossed the border to Spanish Sahara. Boumedienne said "Putain, il (Hassan II) m'a eu". You speak french, so no need to translate. The conflict became personnal, the rest is history.--A Jalil 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential typo: "soul legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people" Shouldn't this be "sole legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people"? There is no citation so I cannot verify if that is the original wording or not, but even if it is it's not correct English, so a (sic) should be added. BridgeTheMasterBuilder (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)