Tags: Morocco, Africa, African Union, partnerships, bi-regional dialogues, African Commission,
REFLECTION ON THE ATTITUDE TO ADOPT IN RESPONSE TO THE MANEUVERS OF OPPONENTS OF OUR TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY WITHIN BI-REGIONAL PROCESSES
– Morocco actively participates in various bi-regional dialogues involving Africa. Its participation and dynamism in these dialogues are of great importance for the defense of its interests and those of African countries in other regions of the world. They are especially significant in allowing Morocco to fulfill its role and maintain visibility at the continental level, particularly as its absence from the organs of the African Union forces it to use other channels of dialogue, cooperation, and influence.
– However, Algeria seeks to disrupt Morocco’s participation in these bi-regional processes through various means, particularly by attempting to impose the so-called “rasd” during meetings organized within the framework of these processes, thus violating the « Cairo format » that governs all partnerships involving Africa.
– These maneuvers mainly occur at the African Union headquarters, where it is difficult to engage in a battle that has a high risk of failure due to the hostile environment. Examples of mercenary intrusions and the withdrawal of the Moroccan delegation were recorded during the meetings of the workshop on the financing of the Africa-EU joint strategy, the steering committee of the 3rd Africa-EU Summit, and the senior officials of ASACOF (Africa-South America) held on October 5-7, 2009, July 16, 2010, and September 7, 2010, respectively.
– These maneuvers are facilitated by the involvement of the African Union Commission, which, under Algerian pressure and the influence of some of its high-ranking officials, particularly the Commissioner in charge of peace and security (the Algerian Laamamra), feels compelled to send invitations to mercenaries to participate in these processes.
Such maneuvers are also carried out in countries hostile to our national cause when they host bi-regional meetings. The meeting of senior officials of the NAASP (Africa-Asia) held in Durban (South Africa) in December 2006 and the ASACOF trade experts meeting held in 2008 in Caracas (Venezuela) are illustrations of this.
– Recently, the increase in these maneuvers gives us reason to believe that we are facing a new tactic from Algeria, aiming to reverse the current situation, which is in our favor, and disrupt our country’s participation by imposing the presence of mercenaries.
– In response to this new offensive, our country must continue to raise awareness among African and partner countries, maintaining pressure to counter these maneuvers and avoid giving Algeria the impression that its new tactic is starting to bear fruit.
– Such awareness efforts are very useful to ensure that Moroccan delegations, if necessary, can face potential situations of mercenary intrusion under better conditions and with greater rigor.
– While Morocco must demonstrate coherence in the strategy and attitude it adopts in the face of these maneuvers, the specificities of each partnership must still be taken into account:
– The Africa-China (FOCAC), Turkey-Africa, Korea-Africa, and Africa-Japan (TICAD) dialogues involve only one country partnering with Africa. The African Union Commission (AUC) has so far failed to impose the so-called « Banjul formula » decided in July 2006 by the AU Summit regarding partnerships with a single country, which limits African participation to only the presidents of the AU and RECs (Regional Economic Communities). Additionally, the AU has applied to become a full member of FOCAC, while at the TICAD level, it has merely requested a follow-up role for the AUC in the process.
– Conversely, the AUC has managed to impose the « Banjul formula » in Africa’s partnership with India, limiting African representation in dialogue with this country to the presidencies of the AU, RECs, and the NEPAD executive secretariat, excluding Morocco for now and favoring Algeria.
– The France-Africa Dialogue, a historical consultation process, poses no risk of deviation for our country.
– The Africa-EU Partnership includes, alongside African countries, the 27 European countries, the Commission, and the Council, which seem to understand Moroccan concerns and could use their influence to restore any deviating situations. Indeed, following the intrusion of mercenaries on July 16, 2010, at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa during the 2nd Steering Committee meeting, the EU established « strict rules » to ensure compliance with the Cairo format in the future.
– The Arab-African Partnership poses fewer risks of mercenary intrusion since both the Arab League and Arab states would not venture into a situation that would block the already paralyzed functioning of the Partnership.
– The Africa-Asia (NAASP) Partnership is characterized by a marked neutrality of Asian countries and support from the majority of Arab countries for the Moroccan position. There is also a favorable precedent for our country, marked by a strong successful Moroccan offensive against mercenary intrusion attempts at the NAASP senior officials’ meeting (Durban, December 2006).
– The ASACOF (Africa-South America) partnership appears to be the most risky, as it includes, among its South American members, six out of twelve countries that recognize the phantom « rasd, » including Venezuela, a country actively hostile to our national cause.
Faced with these maneuvers and considering the above, Moroccan delegations are called to follow the following approach:
Outside the African Union headquarters: It is recommended to demand the withdrawal of the « RASD » and to lead a meticulously prepared battle in advance, supported by awareness campaigns. This approach is particularly advised to avoid giving Algeria the impression that its maneuvers are yielding the expected results.
At the African Union headquarters: If the Moroccan delegation is forced to withdraw to preserve its honor and dignity, a solemn statement must be made before the President opens the session to explain our arguments, mark our delegation’s exit, and avoid simply withdrawing quietly. Such statements are very useful in continuing the awareness campaign and returning to the forefront when the meeting is held outside the AU headquarters.
Additionally, to strengthen the positioning and visibility of our country, it is recommended to actively demonstrate Morocco’s interest in these bi-regional processes by contributing actively to their activities and hosting meetings organized within their framework. Investing further in this regard will only enhance our credibility and positioning in these processes.
Regarding the attitude to adopt towards the African Union and its Commission (AUC), the following points should be emphasized:
The delegations and representatives of our country should not express any hostility towards the African Union and the AUC. It is not recommended to confront this institution, which represents the pride of Africans, including our closest friends. Especially since this institution maintains increasingly dense cooperation relations with all major powers and emerging powers, as well as with a large majority of international and regional organizations, primarily the United Nations.
Morocco does not have a problem with the institution itself. It has issues with part of the governmental component of the African Union. First, the integration of the pseudo « RASD » among AU members without any international legitimacy, and second, the hostility of certain member countries of this Organization towards Morocco’s supreme interests.
In this regard, « discreet cooperation » with the AUC (dissemination of information, exchanges of Verbal Notes, reports, etc.) necessarily takes place during Morocco’s participation in bi-regional processes, in exercising its leadership role as chair or co-chair, and/or when hosting a bi-regional meeting involving Africa in Morocco.
Within the framework of this « discreet cooperation » established with the AUC, Morocco should instead maintain pressure on this institution to persuade it not to invite the pseudo « RASD ». Such an approach is preferable to a confrontation whose outcome is already known.
During text negotiations within the bi-regional partnerships, Moroccan delegations should refrain from opposing the inclusion of the AU and the AUC when it concerns their roles as secretariat, promoters, or coordinators, which fall under their prerogatives as institutions and essential interlocutors for similar institutions in partner regions.
Moroccan delegations will, however, oppose the inclusion in joint texts of language suggesting a certain preeminence of the AU and its Commission or deviating the process from its initial format, such as « The AU and EU Ministers have decided »; « AU-EU Summit or Forum »; « AU-Asia »; « AU-China, » etc., or language indirectly benefiting an entity not a member of the bi-regional processes, such as « …AU member states… ».
Despite all efforts, certain situations will continue to embarrass our country, especially when it comes to the cooperation of AU governmental bodies with their counterparts from other partner regions, such as relations between the AU Peace and Security Council, ECOSOCC, and the Pan-African Parliament with European institutions, where the participation of the pseudo « RASD » cannot be ruled out.
Furthermore, Morocco could also face embarrassment from support programs for the operational organs of the AU. For example, the EU’s funding of the AU’s peace and security architecture (APSA), of which the « Standby Force » is an important component, concerns our country because the North African Brigade, which includes « RASD forces », benefits from this European funding. In this regard, as Morocco cannot oppose the EU’s funding of APSA, it has expressed its discontent with the indirect funding, through European funds, of the North African Brigade, which includes « RASD forces » among its contingents.
Nasser Bourita
Secretary General of Foreign Affaire Ministry
SOURCE :
#Morocco #AfricanUnion #WesternSahara #SADR