Why was Morocco angry at de Mistura's visit to South Africa?

Moroccan anger and questions about the path of the international settlement in the Sahara after de Mistura’s visit to South Africa (Al Jazeera)

Rabat -

The visit of Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy to the Moroccan Sahara, to South Africa sparked strong official and partisan reactions within Morocco, as Rabat considered that this step exceeded the powers of the UN envoy, and departed from the framework that defines his role in mediation between the parties concerned with settling the conflict.

The justifications provided by Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations, regarding this visit were not sufficient to absorb Morocco’s anger, as he said, “Part of de Mistura’s mission is to speak with the states parties and other parties that he believes should be spoken to to advance the international process.”

What made Morocco angry? Could this step affect the mission of the personal envoy in the case? Could we witness a repeat of the scenario of no confidence in former Personal Envoy Christopher Ross in 2012?

Dujarric said that the goal of de Mistura's visit to South Africa is to advance the UN process (Al Jazeera)

Causes of anger

Staffan de Mistura, the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Sahara issue, visited South Africa on January 31, which Morocco considered an excess of its powers and role in the file.

The first Moroccan reaction was expressed by Omar Hilal, Morocco's permanent envoy to the United Nations, in an interview with the Maghreb Arab Press, in which he expressed Morocco's discomfort with this visit.

“Morocco was not consulted or even informed regarding the visit of the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy to the Sahara to South Africa,” Hilal said.

He explained that the Moroccan Foreign Ministry, as soon as it learned of the project of this visit several weeks ago, expressed directly to de Mistura, as well as to the General Secretariat of the United Nations, Morocco’s categorical objection to this visit, and its rejection of any interaction with Pretoria regarding the issue of the Moroccan Sahara, based on legitimate and objective reasons. He pointed out that Morocco clearly warned him of the consequences of his visit on the political process.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Nasser Bourita, detailed the reasons for Morocco's discomfort during a press conference that followed the work of the ministerial segment of the high-level conference on middle-income countries.

Bourita said, "South Africa, which has taken a negative position on the Sahara issue for 20 years, has neither the qualifications nor the ability to influence the course of this file."

He explained that Morocco is based on three elements that are non-negotiable red lines in its treatment of this file, which are identifying the parties concerned with the regional dispute over the Sahara, devoting the round tables as the sole framework for the international series, and emphasizing the autonomy initiative as the one and only solution to the regional conflict.

Bourita stressed that these three elements constitute the basic determinant of Morocco’s work and its interaction with international parties and the UN envoy, and when they are violated, Morocco takes appropriate measures.

The Moroccan Foreign Ministry objects to the United Nations against Mistura’s visit to South Africa (Al Jazeera)

Objective point of view

A number of Moroccan parties expressed their dissatisfaction with the step taken by de Mistura, and the Progress and Socialism Party (opposition) described the visit as “incomprehensible” and “useless,” and stressed in a statement that the mission of this UN official is framed by the necessity of working exclusively with the parties concerned with the process. Political.

For its part, the Justice and Development Party (opposition) considered it “an unacceptable, condemnable and unproductive departure from the UN mandate, which clearly defines the framework of its tasks and the countries directly concerned with this conflict.”

Al-Alam newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Istiqlal Party participating in the government, wrote that this visit means that de Mistura has deviated from the settlement path and the methodology approved by the United Nations, adding that “in the face of his inability, he moved to push for his dismissal indirectly.”

Commenting on these interactions, South Africa's ambassador to Rabat, Ibrahim Idris, denied his country's intention to interfere in Morocco's internal affairs, and added in an interview with the Voice of Morocco electronic newspaper that his government invited the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to meet with it to obtain an objective point of view from him.

He called for de Mistura's visit to South Africa not to be viewed in a negative way, "but rather it should be viewed in a more positive light, because this issue has been on the agenda for the past 50 years, and it was not because of South Africa," as he put it.

He justified his country's communication with the UN envoy by saying that it has full relations with Polisario, and that the latter was a member of the Organization of African Unity before South Africa joined it in 1994.

Electoral accounts

The researcher on the Sahara issue, Ahmed Nour El-Din, believes that Morocco's anger is due to the lack of neutrality and objectivity on the part of South Africa in the regional dispute over the Sahara.

He indicated in an interview with Al Jazeera Net that it unreservedly adopts the separatist thesis, and recognizes the so-called "unilaterally declared republic in Tindouf." This recognition - in his view - means from a legal standpoint that Pretoria decided the fate of the territory in question rather than the population.

The spokesman pointed out that South Africa invited the UN envoy, even though it is not geographically concerned, nor is it institutionally concerned, because it does not have a mandate from the African Peace and Security Council, which has jurisdiction over Africa in mediating to resolve conflicts within the continent.

Nour El-Din believes that this step is governed by electoral calculations, as South Africa will witness parliamentary elections next May, so it is likely that it is “an attempt to achieve some points in foreign policy in order to compensate for the failure in its domestic policy.”

Noureddine: Morocco's anger is due to South Africa's failure to follow neutrality and objectivity in the dispute over the Sahara (Al Jazeera)

Is trust affected?

In light of these continuing developments, the question arises as to whether the angry reactions from Rabat might translate into a withdrawal of confidence from UN envoy de Mistura, and whether the 2012 scenario would be repeated when Morocco officially withdrew its confidence from his predecessor, Christopher Ross, after he accused him of reneging on the negotiating limits set by the Council’s decisions. Security, and his behavior was unbalanced and biased, which ultimately prompted him to resign from his mission.

For Noureddine, it is certain that Morocco's relationship with the personal envoy will be damaged after this step, especially after the statements of the Moroccan Foreign Minister and Ambassador Omar Hilal.

He believes that de Mistura made a professional mistake when he did not inform Morocco of his visit to South Africa, and he committed a political mistake when he ignored Morocco’s refusal to conduct that visit, adding that “Morocco is the first concerned with the conflict, and it is enough for Morocco to refuse to deal with it for its mission to be completed without resorting to a vote of no confidence.” .

Nour El-Din went further when he expected that the current crisis would lead to an end to the entire international settlement process, which began in 1991, but did not lead to any results.

For his part, Abbas Al-Wardi, professor of international law at Mohammed V University, considered that what happened would affect Morocco’s confidence in the UN envoy on the Sahara issue.

He added in a statement to Al Jazeera Net that what is happening currently is a repetition of old scenarios (the crisis with Ban Ki-moon and Christopher Ross), considering that this would affect international legitimacy and the strategic roles of the United Nations in this issue.

Al-Wardi said, "The United Nations must play its role in framing its personal envoy, so that he is not dragged into what he called 'traps' that may lead to intensifying uncertainty instead of moving towards realistic, acceptable and agreed-upon solutions such as the autonomy project."

Source: Al Jazeera