Over the years, as part of my academic research, I have spent many hours at the National Archives poring over diplomatic cables of the kind recently released by WikiLeaks. The only difference is that rather than being released after a 30+ year waiting period -- when the principals involved are presumably dead or in retirement and the countries in question have very different governments in power -- the WikiLeaks are a lot more recent, more relevant and, in some cases, more embarrassing as a result.
However, those of us who have actually read such cables over the years find nothing in them particularly unusual or surprising. Indeed, the only people who would be surprised or shocked by what has been released in the recent dump of diplomatic cables are those who have a naïve view that the U.S. foreign policy is not about empire, but about freedom, democracy, international law, and mutually-respectful relationships between sovereign nations. There is little indication that the foreign governments in question are particularly surprised at any of the content in these cables either.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume the interpretations of events by State Department personnel contained in these documents are accurate reflections of reality. While many career Foreign Service officers are sincere and dedicated people, the nature of their role forces them to see the world from inside the prism of a hegemonic power. They cannot expect to have a more enlightened view of developments within a Middle Eastern state than, for example, a representative of the British Foreign Office would have had a century earlier.
For my doctoral dissertation on what motivated U.S. military intervention in Latin America and the Middle East during the 1950s, I spent many hours reviewing cables sent to and from U.S. embassies in Guatemala and Iran in the months prior to the U.S.-backed coups in those countries. I read frantic messages sent by senior diplomats in the U.S. embassy and top officials in the State Department and the White House regarding what they feared to be imminent Communist takeovers of those countries. Neither of these fears was based on reality, of course, but it was widely believed to be true.
By contrast, there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of cables I reviewed in the lead-up to the coups indicating that the desire to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossedegh was based primarily on his nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or that the plans to overthrow Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was based upon his nationalization of some lands owned by the United Fruit Company. It was based on a sincere, if grossly exaggerated, fear that there was a real threat that these countries would become dominated by pro-Soviet Communists. This certainly does not rule out the likelihood that powerful corporate interests which had a stake in ousting these nationalist leaders helped create the climate that led to such paranoid speculation. However, as far as those who made the key decisions were concerned, it appears to have been based primarily on this fear of Communist takeovers.
There is a tendency among critics of U.S. foreign policy to assume a level of rationality in decision-making that has led to the emergence of many popular conspiracy theories. Yes, there have certainly been conspiracies. Yes, in the final analysis, powerful corporate interests do play an important role in U.S. foreign policy. Yet what is often overlooked is the role of ideology, of the way that those embedded in U.S. embassies are willing to take the prevailing line simply because that it what they are pre-disposed to believe and they didn't have the opportunity or the willingness to figure things out otherwise. This is why, absent of corroborating evidence, I'm skeptical about leaked documents regarding large-scale Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents and other claims which appear to legitimate U.S. militarism.
Our man in Rabat
One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon of allowing ideology to interfere with honest reporting comes in a recently-released cable from the U.S. charge d'affairs in the U.S. embassy in Morocco, Robert P. Jackson.
In his lengthy analysis regarding the conflict over Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara, he makes the preposterous assertion that the independence struggle is essentially an Algerian creation, ignoring decades of popular resistance and longstanding Sahrawi nationalism which pre-dated Algeria's support for the nationalist Polisario Front. He bases this claim on the fact that because the Polisario has failed to claim Sahrawi-populated parts of southern Morocco as part of the Western Sahara state, this somehow proves that the struggle is "less nationalist than geopolitical, linked to the much older dispute between Algeria and Morocco, and hardly boosts the case for an independent state."
In reality, the reasons for this distinction between the two Sahrawi-populated regions is that the Polisario -- unlike Morocco and its supporters -- understands international law: The Sahrawi-populated Tefaya region is universally-recognized as part of Morocco whereas Sahrawi-populated Western Sahara is recognized as a non-self-governing territory under foreign belligerent occupation and therefore has the right to self-determination, including the option of independence. If Morocco would allow the Tefaya region to become part of an independent Western Sahara, there certainly would be no objections by the Polisario, but they simply understand that they have a much stronger case regarding Western Sahara itself. Instead, this U.S. diplomat implies that this willingness to recognize this important legal distinction somehow delegitimizes the nationalist struggle.
Jackson goes on to criticize the United Nations for recognizing the Polisario, along with Morocco, as the two principal parties in the conflict, insisting that the Algerians -- who have no claim to Western Sahara -- are the key to peace because of their support for the Polisario. Rather than pressure Morocco to abide by a series of UN Security Council resolutions and a landmark decision by the International Court of Justice to allow for an act of self-determination, he calls on UN special envoy Christopher Ross, a veteran U.S. diplomat, to "budge [Algerian] President Bouteflika and his government" to allow Morocco to consolidate their conquest.
This cable is very reminiscent of the longstanding effort by State Department officials during the Cold War to delegitimize national liberation struggles by claiming they were simply the creation of Cuba, the Soviet Union, or some other nation-state challenging U.S. hegemony. Indeed, in a throwback to Cold War rhetoric, Jackson insists that the Polisario Front, which has been recognized as the legitimate government of Western Sahara by over 80 governments, is "Cuba-like." In the cable, Jackson calls for U.S. support for Moroccan calls for a census and audit of international programs in Polisario-led refugee camps, but not support for the international call for human rights monitors in the occupied territory. In addition, rather than recognizing the right of Sahrawi refugees to return under international law, he unrealistically suggests that the Sahrawi refugees all be resettled in Spain.
Contradicting findings by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other observers which provide evidence to the contrary, he insists that "respect for human rights in the territory has greatly improved" and "once common beatings and arbitrary imprisonment have also essentially ceased." Despite an unprecedented level of popular resistance against the occupation, he insists "support for independence is waning." He praises Morocco's development efforts in the occupied territory, even claiming that Al Aioun, the occupied Western Sahara capital, is "without any Shantytowns," which is news to those of us who have actually been there and seen them.
In a rare moment of candor, Jackson acknowledges that Morocco's "hard-line stance may have been bolstered by what was perceived in the Palace as uncritical support from Washington." However, he falsely claims that most governments in the UN Security Council support Morocco's "autonomy" plan for Western Sahara, which not only promises a very circumscribed level of self-governance but prohibits the people of Western Sahara from voting on the option of independence as required under international law.
Not long after this cable was written, Jackson was promoted by President Obama to his first post as full ambassador, to the U.S.-backed dictatorship in the Republic of Cameroon. This serves as yet another example that a willingness to tow the official line rather than critically examining the evidence is the key to advancement in the U.S. Foreign Service.
Michael Brenner: WikiLeaks: The Three Faces of Uncle Sam
Alexia Parks: WikiLeaks: The First World InfoWar
The Royal Advisory Council for Human Rights (CCDH) of Morocco in a unique report confirms the killing of 352 "disappeared" Saharawis from 1958 to 1992. Out of these, over 200 died in military bases and secret detention centres, including children.
Some 13 people were executed by a martial court in 1976.
http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/15823.html
In Surrender Is Not an Option, John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote
"independence for the Western Sahara [is what] everyone thought the Sahrawis would choose in a genuinely free and fair referendum"
Morocco's proposed autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty is fully within international law regarding recognized, acceptable forms of self-determination. It's backed by three US administrations (Clinton, Bush, and Obama), bipartisan majorities in Congress, and has broad international support. That isn't ideology, but a workable solution for resolving a 35-year-old crisis.
It's absurd to deny Algeria's role, as chief Polisario-backer, in perpetuating this conflict. The Polisario-run Tindouf camps are in Algeria. Algeria has allowed the Polisario to confine Sahrawi refugees for decades, with no rights, jobs, or future. Thousands have voted with their feet (1,500+ in 2010) making dangerous escapes to return to Morocco.
Rather than disparage the integrity of good people trying to advance America's interests abroad, Professor Zunes should reflect on questions of intellectual honesty studying difficult issues.
ROBERT HOLLEY, Moroccan American Center for Policy
MACP distributes this information on behalf of the Government of Morocco. Additional information is available at Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Classic example of an argument that is fallacious, informally speaking, because it is ad populum, or ad baculum. U.S. Moroccan policy must be right, the argument goes, because three U.S. administrations and bipartisan Congressional majorities supported it, so in other words those in favor of it have great power. Might makes right.
2) The Obama administration, unlike its two predecessors, has not officially endorsed the so-called "autonomy" plan.
3) Far more Sahrawis have fled the repression in the Moroccan-occupied territory in recent years than have returned from the camps. I certainly don't deny that there have been serious problems with Algeria and the Polisario's administration of the camps, but they pale in comparison to the repression on the Moroccan side. Please see the most recent reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
4) The Moroccan-American Center for Policy is a Moroccan-sponsored mouthpiece for the authoritarian monarchy and its spokespersons should not be taken seriously.
Finally, it is inexcusable that the Polisario supporters, including Zunes, look the other way when it comes to the human right abuses in the Tindouf camps and their support of a complete totalitarian regime that governs through oppression as was shown by the imprisonment of Mustapha Ould Salma simply because he wanted to promote the autonomy plan in the Tindouf camp. These so called “human rights” group never condemn Polisario oppression or utter a word about the shameful Spanish occupation of Moroccan Ceuta and Mlilia that lasted over 500 YEARS!
Here are some interesting links:
Wiki Cable Algeria needs to “save face”
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/03/08ALGIERS261.html
Video footage of Polisario atrocities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ3z-V7T9Cc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/09/22/algeria-polisario-arrests-rare-dissenter-refugee-camps
UNHCR inquiry: An eye opening report on the number of refugees
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/archives/UNHCR-IG-Report.pdf
I have been to both the Tindouf camps and Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and my assessment, like that of Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups, is that while there are some problems with the Polisario's governance regarding, the human rights abuses are far far worse in the Moroccan-occupied territories.
Finally, I oppose the Spanish occupation of Cueta and Milila as well, though the human rights abuses pale in comparison to the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.
They would continue to exist even without Algeria? How do you know that for a fact? Where do you get it that it's not a Kaddafi/Boumediene creation?
Where are they going to live, get training, weapons, where are they attack morocco from? the sky? who will pay for their representatives in other countries, who will "remunerate" their "friends", who will bye them votes in European parliaments?
Concerning the human rights, how about the sahrawi children in Tindouf - 8 to 10 years - separated from their parents and sent to Cuba for military training, did you see those in Tindouf? certainly not, they never returned, the thousands of them.
When Mustapha Salma came back to Morocco as part the UN family exchange program, he liked what Morocco is offering. He had a dream to go back to the camps, open a real discussion with the Polisario leadership and the rest of the Sahrawis in Tindouf about the autonomy. On the way back to the camps he was kidnapped tortured and deported. He did not even had the chance to go on hangar strike. unlike the pro Polisario in Morocco. I think that has a lot to say.
First, it is shameful that someone with such academic credentials and claims to be expert on the region can be so wrong on a very simple fact which is the name of town “Tefaya”. There is no such town. I believe you are referring to Tarfaya (with an R). Making the mistake once can be attributed to a typographical error, repeating it twice is a sign of ignorance.
Robert Jackson seems to be a wise man and his assessment is that of a sound man that really understands the region, the history and culture. People in Tarfaya share the same language, accent, eating habits, dress style, culture as those in Tan Tan, Sidi Ifni, Guelmim or in the south in Laayoune, Smara or Dakhla. If Polisario really was a nationalist struggle it is only logical that the entire area would be fighting Morocco. This is not the case and that is Jackson’s view. Even in Laayoune, for example, not all the Sahrawis are calling for separation. Zunes, and others that support the Polisario, refuse to see the simple fact, that even in the Western Sahara the vast majority considers themselves Moroccans. Even the father of the leader of the Polisario is Moroccan, living in Morocco and opposes his son’s views. So it is not a black and white nationalistic struggle.
Also, if Morocco is so confident that the "vast majority" of people in Western Sahara consider themselves Moroccan, why have they refused to abide by a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling for a free and fair referendum on the fate of the territory?
And by the way, you need to do some reading, it wasn't Morocco who got tired with the whole identification process (preliminary to the referendum) but the United nations. The whole process was going nowhere and this didn't seem to bother the POLISARIO since it arranges the Algeria so dear to your heart (BTW more people were killed in algeria in suspicious circumstances than the whole sahrawis in the sahara, for and against Morocco).
As everybody is telling here but you won't listen, the conditions proposed by the polisario won't let the father of mr abdelaaziz (the 35 years president of RASD, but no he is no authoritarian even the RASD is a one party government...) to vote...
Why don't you check your knowledge....
For the record, I do not support the Algerian government and have criticized its human rights record, among other things. I'm certainly not an uncritical supporter of the Polisario either.
And readers should know that while there are many right-wing Moroccan supporters of the occupation and Morocco's authoritarian monarchy like those in this comments section, there are also a growing number of Moroccan dissidents who, despite the threat of repression for their beliefs, do support human rights and international law.
Furthermore, the Polisario and Algeria refuse to allow those people from Sahrawi origin and were forced out of (or fled) the territories during Franco’s brutal rule. They only accepted a list based on the census conducted in 1974 by the Spanish occupation that mostly took into consideration people living in urban areas. Many Sahrawis were nomads and would have been impossible for them to register in the 1974 census. But this seems to be too complicated for simple minds that look for a facile interpretation of the conflict that fits their preconceived narrow worldview.
One cannot ignore the double standards and indeed hypocrisy of those supporting the Polisario but never show the same support for the decolonization of the Moroccan cities of Ceuta and Mlilia occupied for 500 years!!!
Stephen: You state that : “oppose the Spanish occupation of Cueta and Milila “ please share with us the articles condemning this great injustice!
10) This is not a fact but wish of mine, to all you Saharawi’s sympathizers’ please be fair and balanced and spread you love (and your human rights advocacy) equally amongst all the children of the Sahara both inside Morocco, in the liberated Sahara, Tindouf and beyond.
To the Spanish Polisario lover’s brigade, please do the same and spread the love equally too, but please do so in moderation, for we Moors know your love can be overwhelming. When Abd el-Krim and the Rif’s warriors were gaz-ed to submission, Abd el-Krim preferred to surrender to the French then face your overwhelming love for the Moors.
Lets take the mutant Marxist Polisario turned into Human Rights champion, what part of the international law do they apply in the concentration camps of Tindouf and the liberated Sahara?
The current President of Algeria that no doubt understand the international law better than the life time president of Polisario, where does he stand in front of international law? wasn’t he the one that forcibly deported 350000 legally residents of Algeria to Morocco for no crime they have committed?
8) I did not need to read any cables leaks to know that this conflict was and is artificial and have lots to do with the Pan-Arab socialism and the political climate of the cold war. I am the son of the area and I know that political climate that the area went through and sill going trough at the moment. I did not needed to read any leaked cables to come to this conclusion, in fact I knew this from my early age and so do lots of people in Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and beyond.
Even worse, can you imagine the mayhem the international law and the UN will have to go through to decide who should qualify to vote in which referendum and which "Arabic Democratic Republic"? What a mess and waste of resources that would be!
6) Just the name "Sahrawi Arabic Democratic Republic" is reminiscent of the Pan-Arab socialism era, this name alone is enough to convince people who know the area and its cultural identity that the separatist were indeed locals to the Sahara but were misguided and brain damaged by international socialist and Pan-Arab socialism. This conflict bears all the marks of a geopolitical rather than nationalistic struggle.
You have mentioned Tarfaya area. Any one that knows Tarfaya and Sidi Ifni (and most of the Sahara for that matter) knows that its inhabitants are Ait Ba'amran, this tribe and others are not Arabic Democratic but Berbers.
1) The leadership of the FLN became more of a hardliner and leaned more toward the socialist block after the coup d’état led by General Boumediene. Morocco leaned to wards France and the USA.
2) Algerian leadership and Qaddafi saw an opportunity to oppose and weaken the monarchy in Morocco and to work toward overthrowing the king of morocco through the Polisario in the Sahara and the left movement/generals in morocco north of the Sahara. The Algerian Government of 1975 even went to the extent to deport 350000 Moroccans that were living and settled in Algeria.
3) The FLN never forgave the Moroccan Government for the Sand War and saw in Polisario an opportunity for pay back time and waging a by-proxy war against Morocco.
4) In the 60's and 70's Pan-Arab socialism was at its heydays, these socialist regimes (including Boumediene and Qaddafi) saw Monarchies (Moroccan Monarchies at the top list) in the area as obstacle towards achieving the Pan-Arab socialism unity. They encouraged all the left separatists movement (which the Marxist Polisario was one of them) to take up arms and work toward achieving the Arabic socialism dream in the area.
Well done.
Now, if we could just get more people who actually know something to write about teh released cables we might learn a thing or two about what is actually going on in the world and in our government.
It is emblematic of the extent to which American public opinion is controlled by the media to note that most foreign governments and foreigners in general are not at all surprised to learn that the overall objective of US foreign policy had little to do with freedom and democracy, but that this news comes as such a shock to many, that they simply refuse to believe it.