Infobox

[daryou]

Hello, I suggest to change the Infobox to the version "neutral version
of template" in the history of the infobox template (user:Dark side), I
think it will be a neutral Infobox (see for example the French page of
WS), Cheers.

[justi...@gmail.com]

There is no need to delete the information presented, based on the
precendent established by several other Wikipedia pages. The pages on
breakaway republics like Abhkazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and
Transnistria (entirely unrecognized entities) include such infoboxes.
Also, entities that aren't even self-declared as independent (such as
Vojvodina), or no longer exist as separate entities (such as Biafra)
contain them. The simple existence of this information in the page
itself is not indicative of a point of view on the subject.

[Daryou]

* I suggest to delete not the infobox but some information that I
believe to be not neutral (Flag of RASD, Coat if arms of RASD,
president of RASD, hymne of RASD, etc)
* We are discussing here the page WS and not the pages you mentioned.
*You can see the page WS in French, it is a neutral page.
* "Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a
page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The
salient point is that one side-who cares enough to be making the
point-thinks that the article says something that other people would
want to disagree with."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F
==> before pursuing this discussion, we must agree that if somone says
the an item isn't neutral than this item isn't neutral and we must
change it.

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) The information in this infobox, and the other infoboxes includes
national symbols and governmental figures. The simple presentation of
this information is not inherently biased.
2.) While we are discussing the Western Sahara page, it is useful to
confer with other pages that are similar. Those pages discuss similar
geo-political entities in similar situations, and the decisions made on
those pages are guidance for the decisions made on this one.
3.) The French Wikipedia is the worst example to choose if you are
looking for a NPOV page, since the French have largely supported the
Moroccan position (militarily, financially, and politically).
4.) The Wikipedia policy and common sense dictate that simple
accusations of non-neutrality are not the same thing as actual
non-neutrality. Take, for instance, the page on abortion. If a
completely neutral and informative article was written about this
topic, there would be people from either side of the discussion
claiming that it wasn't actually neutral, simply because of their own
ethical, political, and religious convictions. I refuse to agree that
the simple accusation of non-neutrality is conclusive proof of
non-neutrality. The link that you provide states that it is a "strong"
"inductive" argument, rather than a "logically-conclusive" and "valid"
argument. There *is* reason to believe that the page is not neutral due
to accusations, but there is not conclusive proof that it is.

[Daryou]

* You say that the infoboxes includes national symbols and governmental
figures. which nation and which government are you speaking about in
the case of WS?
* I repeat that we are discussing WS, because all cnflicts aren't
similar.
* I don't agree with you about the french page, you are confusing
government and people, French WP isn't a governmental page. The french
page of WS was like the English version now (you can see the history).
With a discussion process we finally agreed apon a concenssus. We must
do the same thing here.
*You are pro-polisario, I'm pro-Morocco. We are searching a concenssus.
That means finding items that both of us will agree about. The final
result of our descussion process is a page that we both think neutral.
Do you agree?

[justi...@gmail.com]

*The nation would be the Sahrawis - they are the ethnic group that
inhabited the territory for centuries prior to occupation. The
government is the SADR - the only one recognized as the legitimate
government of the territory.
*I'll grant you that not all conflicts are the same, but it's
hypocritical of you to dismiss Abhkazia, the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. by simply saying "they're not the
same" and THEN refer to the French Wikipedia as some kind of
justification. You're contradicting yourself.
*The French government and people have both been largely pro-Moroccan,
but either way, we are discussing and reaching consensus. ***EVERY***
other Wikipedia that has an infobox includes the flag of the SADR.
EVERY one. So, again, the choice of French as an example is bankrupt.
*I'm happy to find consensus and discuss the matter, but again you
contradict yourself. Earlier, on Wikipedia, I explained my biases and
said that I am pro-Sahrawi. You glibly thanked me, claimed that my
edits were biased, and tried to hijack the process of editing. Are you
now admitting that YOUR edits are biased, and YOU shouldn't be editing
the article(s) further? I don't agree that the goal is to accomodate
you or me or anyone else's notion of neutrality, for precisely the
reason I gave earlier (the abortion page). There will always be people
who claim non-neutrality, and the burden of proof is on them to prove
that is the case.

[Daryou]

* The nation you are talking about is not recognized by 140 nations and
the UN.
* All conflicts aren't the same
* The french page and the CIA factbook are good examples for neutral
pages
* I'll ask you my last question before I quit: are you willing ever to
change this infobox?

[justi...@gmail.com]

*The "nation" is an ethnic group, and yes, they are recognized as a
distinct people by everyone except possibly Morocco. The "state", as
the SADR, is not recognized by slightly less than 140 other states, but
that does not mean it isn't one. Most states have a policy of
neutrality on the matter, and want to see a peaceful resolution to the
conflict.
*I know. But you aren't offering me ANY EVIDENCE that this conflict is
different in any substantive way. WHY should the infoboxes remain on
"Somaliland" "Nagorno-Karabakh", etc. but not on "Western Sahara"? Why?
*The French page and the CIA World Factbook are considered neutral only
becuase you agree with their edits. To say on the one hand that most of
the world doesn't recognize the SADR and then claim that the majority
of Wikipedias are pro-Polisario is nonsense.
*I am willing to change the infobox if you give me some evidence as to
why I should. Simply saying that it's POV does not persuade me of
anything.

[FRANCISCO JAVIER BERNAL ESTEVEZ]

Not a single country has ever recognised the annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco, aside maybe the exceptional comments of Saddam Hussein about "Morocco's right to defend its territorial integrity"

[daryou]

The position of Morocco is known: "western sahara is morocain", and the
position of polisario is known: "WS must be independant under the name
of SADR". I don't ask to recognize the position of Morocco. I don't ask
you to put the Moroccan flag in this page. I don't ask you to write
that the president of WS is the moroccan King. I just ask you to be
neutral. Is it so dificult to understand?! until the resolution of the
conflict, let's say that WS isn't moroccan yet and isn't SADR yet.
That's what I call "neutral", that's the position of the UN, that's the
position of CIA, that's the position of 140 countries. there are some
discussions that can't lead anywhere, the same kind of conversation
that could take place between an Israelien and a palestinian or between
a priest and an imam who try to convert each other. You'll never
persuade me that WS is SADR and I can't convince you that the WS is
Moroccan. Some things can seem evident to me and senseless to you and
vice versa. there is no truth in tis kind of discussions. But we can
find an agreement. I don't have any thing against you, We all are
citizen of the world. Maybe if I was born in Tindouf camps I would
think differently, and the same thing could hapen to you. This
conflict has begun before I was born, and I'm looking forward the day
when it will finish and we become all brothers, What did I say? we are
already brothers. Thanks and respect and peace.

[FRANCISCO JAVIER BERNAL ESTEVEZ]

As far as I see it, the only way out is to keep the text as for the edit just before Dark side's last one and start some subsection to explain each POV.

[justi...@gmail.com]

What is not neutral about presenting the flag of Western Sahara? IT IS
A COMMON PRACTICE among *all* other Wikipedias (other than French), and
*all* other disputed territories in the English one. YOU HAVEN'T
EXPLAINED *WHY* IT IS POV! Most countries do not have a position on the
conflict, so it is not true to say that 140 countries have a position
of neutrality. For the majority that do have a position, most of them
recognize the SADR. Is that hard to understand? I have no interest in
convincing you of anything, other than the following two points:

1.) The presence of this information is STANDARD PRACTICE, and has been
the case for months.
2.) You have to provide EVIDENCE rather than simply make ASSERTIONS if
you want to be persuasive. You refuse to offer evidence or counter any
arguments that I put forth.

I appreciate your diplomatic tone, and the fact that you've apparently
abandoned glib assertions and personal attacks, but that doesn't change
the two simple facts that I've presented above. If you can provide a
cogent argument that actually addresses them, then I'll be happy to be
convinced of your position.

[daryou]

1) What is not neutral about presenting the flag of WS is that there
is two flags of WS, the Moroccan n eand the polisario one, You chose
the SADR one So it isn't neutral and it is a POV.
2) the presence of this information is standard practice, I agree, but
this informaton must be neutral. Saddam Hussain was the president of
IRAK for YEARS, that doesn't mean that he was rightful.
3) I provide EVIDENCE, YOU provide ASSERTIONS, You never respond
directly to my arguments but respond by other assertions.
4) I'm not searching to convince you. It's so sad that you aren't
willing to change your opinions.
5) I see that this discussion doesn't lead anywhere and isn't useful.
Let's continue it in WP. Peace upon you.

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) The flag of Morocco is just that - the flag of the geographic and
political entity recognized by the entire international community as
the Kingdom of Morocco. The simple fact that it is also flown in a
different geographic and political entity does not make it the flag of
that entity. Anywhere in the world that you would go, if you were to
ask someone knowedgeable on the topic, they would say that the one with
the star in the middle is the flag of Morocco and the one with the
crescent and star is Western Sahara. Thus, this is the flag of Western
Sahara.
2.) Okay, I think I'm understanding your point a little better now.
There is no implicit claim of legitimacy with the presentation of this
information. Presentation is not glorification, glamorization, or
advocacy of what should be done, but rather represents the facts as
they are. The infobox included a line about how the SADR is a
government-in-exile, and does not control the majority of the territory
(although they do control some of it), this presentation represents a
neutral point of view as it is factual.
3.) This is totally uncalled-for and childish. I've wanted to carry on
a dialogue, and I keep on presenting examples and asking questions.
I've directly answered every question you've asked me on the topic, and
you've dodged them. Give me one example of an assertion I've made that
I haven't backed up with evidence. One.
4.) This is also childish and hypocritical. You say that it's sad that
I won't change my opinions. What does that mean? I clearly said the
exact opposite (I WAS willing to change my opinion, when presented with
factual evidence), and YOU have expressed no willingness to change YOUR
opinion.
5.) Whatever - I've invested a lot more into the dialectical process
than you, and you're the one who's throwing his hands in the air?
That's preposterous. Peace upon you, too, whatever that means.

[Daryou]

· You have the right to think that the flag of Morocco is just that -

the flag of the geographic and political entity recognized by the

entire international community as the Kingdom of Morocco and the simple

fact that it is also flown in a different geographic and political

entity does not make it the flag of that entity. It's your POV as you
are pro-polisario. It's not my POV as I'm Moroccan and I think that
WS is Moroccan.
· The flag of polisario isn't recognized by the entire
international community as the flag of WS, It's a fact.
· Anywhere in the world that you would go, if you were to ask someone
knowledgeable on the topic, the response will be different if you ask a
Moroccan, an Algerian, a Mauritanian or an American; it depends on POV
of each person
· There is no implicit claim of legitimacy with the presentation of
the Moroccan flag and government of Morocco in the WS page.

Presentation is not glorification, glamorization, or advocacy of what
should be done, but rather represents the facts as they are.

· The infobox can include information about the Moroccan government
and a line about how it controls the majority of the territory; this
presentation will represents a neutral point of view as it will be
factual.
· Let's stop personal attacks
· You see that I've directly answered every question you've asked me
here, what do you think? Can you do exactly the same thing and respond
to my arguments one by one without resorting to personal attacks?
Thanks

[justi...@gmail.com]

*Morocco, around the world, in every country, by everyone who is not
Moroccan, is considered to end directly north of Western Sahara. This
is true now, and was true directly before colonization. No one disputes
this. So, to say a flag is the flag of Morocco is to say that it is the
flag that represents this geographic entity. That's not my POV, in
asmuchas it's the POV of the entire global community at large. This
isn't me trying to make the facts fit my biases, rather my bias is in
favor of the facts.
*Name one geo-political entity that recognizes another flag as the flag
of Western Sahara, OR that doesn't recognize the "flag of polisario" as
the flag of Western Sahara, other than Morocco.
*To present the Moroccan flag and government as the government of
Western Sahara is to promote an idea that no one accepts. To say that
Mohammed Abdelazziz is the president-in-exile of Western Sahara is
true. No one disputes that. The article at large includes a lengthy
discussion of Moroccan annexation and occupation. I would not
necessarily be opposed to it being presented in the infobox myself,
though.

[Daryou]

1) I'm moroccan , there are 30 millions of moroccans who believe that
WS is Moroccan, It's a matter of fact that the moroccan flag flow
over moroccan sahara, it's a matter of fact that WS is moroccan, WS
was moroccan before colonisation and will always be.
2) Plus, the POV of the entire global community is that the legal
status of the territory of WS and issue of sovereignty is unresolved
and the territory is contested by Morocco and Polisario Front, and the
conflict is in its way to resolution under the surveillence of the UN.
3) Plus In the UN map of morocco
(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/morocco.pdf) you'll
read a little but very important sentence: "The boundaries and names
shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations". So the UN doesn't
endorse that Morocco ends directly north of Western Sahara.
4) According to precedent points (1, 2, and 3), your sentence:

"Morocco, around the world, in every country, by everyone who is not
Moroccan, is considered to end directly north of Western Sahara. This
is true now, and was true directly before colonization. No one disputes

this.". Is false and express you POV
5) I don't have enough place in this page to name all geo-political
entities that doesn't recognize the "flag of polisario" as the flag of
Western Sahara, other than Morocco. I'll name the UN, USA, France,
Canada, etc (there are 141). By then, to present the Polisario flag and

government as the government of Western Sahara is to promote an idea

that international community and the UN don't accept.
6) Your sentence: "To present the Moroccan flag and government as the

government of Western Sahara is to promote an idea that no one

accepts." is a POV because all Moroccans accept. The WS flag is
actually the flag of Morocco, and government of Morocco is now the
government of Western Sahara that's a fact and no one dispute that.
It's not an idea, it's a fact. By then your sentence "Mohammed
Abdelazziz is the president-in-exile of Western Sahara" is FALSE.
Actually, the king of WS is Mohammed VI, it's a fact.
7) I don't understand why:
* the sentence:"There is no implicit claim of legitimacy with the
presentation of this information (about SADR). Presentation is not

glorification, glamorization, or advocacy of what should be done, but

rather represents the facts as they are. The infobox included a line
about how the SADR is a government-in-exile, and does not control the
majority of the territory (although they do control some of it), this
presentation represents a neutral point of view as it is factual."
Should be true
* And the sentence "There is no implicit claim of legitimacy with the
presentation of the Moroccan flag and government of Morocco in the WS

page. Presentation is not glorification, glamorization, or advocacy of
what should be done, but rather represents the facts as they are. The
infobox can include information about the Moroccan government and a
line about how it controls the majority of the territory; this
presentation will represents a neutral point of view as it will be

factual." Should be false.

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) Western Sahara is not Moroccan for several reasons:
Culturally, Sahrawis are not Moroccans. They speak a different dialect
of Arabic, they structure their societies and economies differently,
and they don't self-identify as Moroccan.
Historically, through the 18th centuries and directly prior to
colonization, outside powers and even Moroccan sultans recognized that
they had no sovereign power over the territory. See the Marrakesh
Treaty (http://www.wsahara.net/m_treaty.html), Meknes Treaty
(http://www.wsahara.net/meknes.html), and Anglo-Moroccan Agreement
(http://www.wsahara.net/am_agr.html).
Legally, the territory has never been considered integral to the
Kingdom of Morocco. This was the finding of the International Court of
Justice in 1975. Also, I personally own seven maps of Africa printed in
Europe from 1889-1914, and all of them have Morocco terminating in
Tarfaya. This is exactly why the territory was made its own colony by
the Spanish: they recognized a pre-existing difference between the two
entities.
The Sahrawis are not now, nor will they ever be, Moroccan.
2.) The entire world community (other than Morocco, of course), does
view the area as a conflict, and the infobox does not contradict that
in any way.
3.) The UN map of Poland says the same thing . Are you telling me that
*POLAND* is also Moroccan?

3) Plus In the UN map of morocco

(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/poland.pdf). This
example is a desperate attempt, honestly.
4.) This isn't false. This is the legal point of view of the ICJ, and
the diplomatic point of view of every sovereign state, again, except
Morocco itself. Present evidence to the contrary, and I will believe
you.
5.) The international community at large has no stated opinion on the
status of the territory. Those that do have a stated position are
overwhelmingly pro-Polisario. Other than the US and Mauritania, I don't
know of any government that has a stated position of neutrality, and
NONE of them recognize the annexation. Can you name one state that has
a policy of neutrality? The UN is certainly a meaningful entity in the
dispute, but the African Union is more germane, as it directly tried to
broker negotiations for several years prior to UN intervention, and the
AU has the SADR as a full member state.
6.) Of course some people think that Western Sahara is an integral part
of Morocco, but they're all Moroccan! I meant no one without a vested
interest in the outcome of the dispute.
7.) There is an actual government-in-exile for the territory and THAT
government is the only one with ANY recognition AT ALL over the
territory, so it is apporpriate to put that one on the infobox. To put
a government that has NO recognition is POV. Again, I have no problem
stating that the territory is under occupation in the infobox - that is
true and relevant. But when it comes to information on the government,
there is only one government that anyone at all recognizes, and that is
the SADR. Certainly, that would be the most factual and useful to
readers.

[Daryou]

1. Moroccan Berbers speak a different dialect or language, they
structure their societies and economies differently, are they by then
not Moroccans? You said "they don't self-identify as Moroccan »
that's a POV not a fact. Your treaties of 18 century don't mean
what you are stating; your interpretation is a POV. The finding of the
International Court of Justice in 1975 was that there were historical
relations between Moroccan government and tribes of the region. I
personally would like to see those seven maps of Africa printed in
Europe from 1889-1914. And finally if have some time you can go to
http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/sahara.html,
you'll find evidence that WS is Moroccan.
2. The entire world community does view the area as a conflict, your
infobox contradict that by all ways because it presents a government
who doesn't have any legitimacy and is not recognized by
International community.
3. Poland isn't an area of conflict; WS is an area of conflict. So
this sentence means what it means in that case. UN doesn't endorse
that Morocco ends north of WS. It's a fact.
4. What you say is false. What you say isn't the legal point of view
of the ICJ or the diplomatic point of view of other states.
5. What do you think about the 24 nations who cancelled their
recognition of SADR?
6. Of course some people think that Western Sahara is an integral part
of Morocco, some of them are Moroccans. They are part of the dispute
and have their word to say in this conflict.
7. There is an actual government for the territory and THAT government
is the only one that controls the territory and don't need any
recognition because it governs the territory and that's a fact. As
said Hassan II: "Morocco is in his Sahara". If recognition of
SADR by 50 countries was rightful why didn't the other 140 countries
of the world do the same? Why didn't the UN do the same? Why did 24
nations cancel their recognition of SADR? There is ONE answer: there is
no rightness in this recognition, they all are political recognitions
and just diplomatic successes of Algerian government who backs your
polisario. So it is appropriate to put the Moroccan flag on the
infobox. To put a government that isn't recognized by the
international community is POV.
8. Again, I re-ask my question (Because your response was inadequate):
why your sentence should be true and mine should be false since they
have the same formulation, and since the question of sovereignty in the
territory isn't resolved and that territory is an area of conflict as
you said?

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) Moroccan Berbers live in what is commonly understood to be Morocco,
and have been subject to Moroccan monarchy for generations. Neither of
those things are true of the Sahrawis, and those are the key
differences. Sahrawis *don't* self-identify as Moroccan. How is that
POV? And how are the treaties and my interpretation of them POV? The
Moroccan establishment is expressing a lack of control over the Sahara.
They themselves are admitting it in legally-binding agreements with
fellow sovereign states. The ICJ did find that there were legal ties,
BUT, the MOST IMPORTANT PART is the one you deliberately chose to leave
out, where the Court explicitly says in its ruling that these legal
ties *did not* imply sovereignty or rightful ownership over the
territory. These legal ties also did not apply to "self-determination
through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of
the Territory." The same was found on January 29, 2002, pursuant to
Moroccan exploitation of phosphates and off-shore oil drilling. The
Court found that Morocco has "neither sovereignty nor rights of legal
administration." If you would honestly like to see my maps, I can scan
them on campus. I've seen the propaganda that the government has
created, including this exact page before, and all that's relevant is
that they washed their hands of the territory immediately prior to
colonization. Whatever ties they formerly had, EVEN IF they included
sovereign rights to the territory, the government of Morocco denied any
such control over the territory immediately prior to the arrival of the
Spanish, and that is the consistent finding of the ICJ, and that is a
fact.

2.) Honestly, I've tried to understand you, but this point is
ungrammatical. If you claim that the SADR has no legitimacy you are
simply lying. The full membership of the SADR in the African Union is
legitimate. The recognition of 54 states is also legitimate.

3.) Okay. Here's the point I'm making: THAT TEXT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
UN MAP IS IRRELEVANT. That exact same text is present on other maps,
and is not germane to the situation in the Sahara. It is generic text
thrown on maps of territories that are not in dispute also. That text
is meaningless. When the UN has Morocco address any of its organs, it
does so under the internationally-recognized boundaries of Morocco -
the same boundaries that are understood by EVERY state in the world.
Every one. The UN has consistently denied that Morocco has sovereignty
over the Sahara, as the ICJ is a part of the UN, so, no, the UN does
not have an unconventional understanding of the borders of Morocco. It
agrees with world opinion.

4.) This shows that you aren't interested in genuine dialogue. I said,
"provide evidence" and you refused. You blatantly refused and just said
"What you say is false." HOW is it false? HOW? Give me REASONS, not
ASSERTIONS, and then I will believe you.

5.) I honestly have no idea. I don't know the rationale of any of those
nations. I can only assume they did what they thought was in the best
interests of their country.

6.) Name one person that has any legitimacy as an authority or member
of government of any state in the world of Morocco that includes the
Sahara as an integral part of the Kingdom of Morocco and isn't
Moroccan.

7.) The territory is controlled in parts by two separate governments.
One such government, the SADR, has been recognized by some governments
as legitimate. The other government, the Kingdom of Morocco, has never
been recognized as legitimate by any state. Who cares what Hassan II
said? He wasn't unbiased. He also said, "I have always said that, in
this country, the rights of man stopped at the country of the Sahara.
Anyone who said that the Sahara was not Moroccan could not benefit from
the rights of man." He was an irredentist monarch, and believed that
people with different opinions were sub-human. I definitely don't trust
him as a source of factual information on a dispute that he caused. Are
you honestly trying to convince me by providing a quote from him?
Honestly? Many other nations are simply ignorant or disinterested in
the conflict. I work with a girl from Tunisia, she lived in the
capital, Tunis, for 22 years, and NEVER even heard of the conflict
until I, an American, brought it to her attention. The only
international affairs that she ever heard about were American and
Palestinian, and she was a college graduate, not an ignorant woman. And
Tunisia is in the Maghreb. The UN stayed out of the conflict for over a
decade, and let the involved parties (Polisario, Algeria, Morocco,
Mauritania, etc.) and the Organisation for African Unity decide the
outcome. It was only after Morocco endorsed a referendum and then left
the OAU that the UN entered.

BEAR IN MIND: you DIRECTLY contradict yourself in these two sentences:


"...[I]t is appropriate to put the Moroccan flag on the

infobox. To put a government that isn't recognized by the
international community is POV."

THE MOROCCAN GOVERNMENT ISN'T RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[FRANCISCO JAVIER BERNAL ESTEVEZ]

On 9/28/05, Daryou <dar...@gmail.com> wrote:

..., WS was moroccan before colonisation and will always be.

Daryou, you are a clown and an agitator. You have no intention of getting involved into a rational discussion. You have your point of view and are simply tring to impose it into the wider community. Maybe you'll be happier to have all of us "dissapear" as the Majzen mafia, whose ideas you defend so much, did to Mehdi Ben Barka.

[Daryou]

1.) "Sahrawis don't self-identify as Moroccan" is your POV because
it isn't a fact. Your interpretation of the treaties is POV because
what you are stating isn't a fact. And I would like to read the whole
treaties and not abstracts chosen by a pro polisario site. You finally
recognize that the ICJ did find that there were legal ties; it is the
MOST IMPORTANT PART. Your sentence: "The Court explicitly says in
its ruling that these legal ties did not imply sovereignty or rightful
ownership over the territory" needs some evidence.
Yes I want honestly like to see your maps.
I see that you take all what you don't like in Moroccan governmental
actions for propaganda.
And what about the link I gave you? Did you visit it?
2.) I meant that the government of SADR doesn't have any legitimacy and
is not recognized by International community. The cancellation of
recognition by 24 countries is legitimate. So your infobox isn't
adequate. I never accused you of lying, so stop accusing me (We agreed
to stop personal attacks).
3.) Okay. THAT TEXT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE UN MAP IS RELEVANT. If it was
meaningless, why the UN added it, just for laugh????!!! And please stop
using the words "Every one", "Every state" and "world
opinion" inadequately.
4.) I'm really interested in genuine dialogue. I'm giving you
REASONS, not ASSERTIONS. You'll find reasons in the precedent and
following points.
5.) I wonder if you really don't have any idea?! Are you telling me
that you don't read press? I know the rationale of those nations:
there wasn't, there isn't and there will never be a government of
SADR in the WS. Me too I can assume that your 54 nations (who
recognized your pseudo-republic) did what they thought was in the best
interests of their countries.
6.) I don't understand your reasoning. Morocco is a part of the
conflict and HAVE HIS WORD TO SAY in this conflict. Is there any
possible negotiation about the conflict of WS without Morocco and
polisario? You can read in Minurso reports that the concerned parties
in this conflict are Morocco, Polisario Frent and Algeria.
(http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/418/66/PDF/N0541866.pdf?OpenElement).
7.) The recognition of SADR by a few countries doesn't make SADR
legitimate. If SADR was legitimate it would be recognized by the other
140 countries of the World and the UN. And the 24 countries who
cancelled their recognition would NEVER do.
Hassan II was a great King and you'll never convince me by the
opposite; I cited his words because I believe them, you don't have to
believe them as you are pro polisario, and Hassan II isn't our
subject of discussion.
Maybe your Tunisian friend never even heard of the conflict. But the
governments of Tunisia, USA, France, Spain, etc DID HEAR of the
conflict and never recognized your imaginary republic.
You say that "the government of Morocco isn't recognized by the
international community as the government of WS". I say that "the
government of SADR isn't recognized by the international community".
Where do you see me contradicting myself ???!!!!!
To put (in the infobox) a government (SADR government) that isn't
recognized by the international community is POV. Where is the
contradiction?!!
8.) I see that you have no responses to my question 8:

why your sentence should be true and mine should be false since they

have the same wording, and since the question of sovereignty in the

territory isn't resolved and that territory is an area of conflict as
you said?

NB: I refuse to respond to Francisco because I refuse to resort to
personal attacks.

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) If Sahrawis self-identified as Moroccan, there wouldn't be a
dispute. You interpret these treaties, then. Tell me what to think of
them. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the ICJ explicitly said that
Morocco does not have sovereignty over the territory. Period. It
doesn't. There are "legal ties" between the U.S. and Morocco pursuant
to the trade agreement that we signed in 2004 - does that mean the US
is Moroccan, too? You don't trust me, fine:
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isasummary751016.htm.
Would you please not resort to these crass and asinine assertions like

"I see that you take all what you don't like in Moroccan governmental

actions for propaganda." This isn't helpful. Plus, I already told you
last post that I've seen this same page before. Did you even read what
I wrote? Why are you asking me a question like this?
2.) I never said you accused me of lying. Please read my posts.
3.) I didn't say the text was "meaningless", I said it was "irrelevant"
because the UN puts that exact same text on maps of areas that aren't
in dispute. The UN does recognize the internationallly-recognized
borders of Morocco. Look at the MINURSO map, which defines Morocco as
exactly what the rest of the world does:
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/minurso.pdf. Give me one
instance where I used the words "every one", "every state" and "world
opinion" inadequately.
5.) There is currently a "government of SADR in the WS." They aren't my
nations, and it isn't my pseudo-republic. Since "psuedo-" means false,
and a republic is a form of democracy, is Morocco a "psuedo-republic",
too, considering that it isn't anti-democratic?
6.) You said "some people" think that Western Sahara is Moroccan and
"some" of them are Moroccan. Name one of them that isn't.
7.) What would make the SADR legitimate, then? The Montevideo
Convention states:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the
following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined
territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations
with the other states."

Western Sahara has all of these: a permanent population of nomadic
persons in a defined region, with a stable governing body (the SADR),
which currently has relations with other such states. Israel is a
legitimate state, even though its existance is denied by 30-some Arab
states. The fact that X amount of states ignore its legitimacy is
irrelevant, as long as some of them recognize it. How was Hassan great?
Because he was a racist that called political dissentors sub-human? You
brought up Hassan, not me - you made him part of the discussion. The
contradiction is this:

"...[I]t is appropriate to put the Moroccan flag on the

infobox. To put a government that isn't recognized by the
international community is POV."

-The Moroccan government isn't recognized as the legitimate power in
Western Sahara.
-To put a government that isn't recognized by the international
community is POV.
-It is appropriate to put the Moroccan flag on the infobox.

The Moroccan government is an example of a government that is not
recognized by the international community. NO government recognizes
Moroccan sovereingty over the Sahara, and SOME recognize the SADR.
Therefore, by your logic, it is inappropriate to put the Moroccan flag
on there, and, if anything, appropriate to put the SADR flag.
8.) One government is recognized by some, the other by none.

[Daryou]

1) There is a dispute because Polisario don't self-identifie as
Moroccan. Saying that the Sahrawis don't self-identifie as Moroccans
is a POV. You are not the mouthpiece of all Sahrawis. Sahrawis have

been subject to Moroccan monarchy for generations.

The treaties were used by morocco as arguments for the Moroccanity of
WS before the ICJ. You'll find the Moroccan interpretation in those
pages
http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/s_hist.htm
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isasummary751016.htm
The ICJ said: there were legal ties of allegiance between some tribes
of the region and sultan of Morocco. There is no ties of Allegiance
between Morocco and USA.
« crass and asinine » mean « stupid », It's a personal attack.
I read every word you write and I see that you don't like so much the
Moroccan government and its actions in the WS conflict and you take
them for propaganda.
2)You didn't respond to my point 2) I meant that the government of

SADR doesn't have any legitimacy and is not recognized by International
community. The cancellation of recognition by 24 countries is
legitimate. So your infobox isn't adequate.

3) You said "It is generic text thrown on maps of territories that
are not in dispute also. That text is MEANINGLESS." Maybe you should
read your own posts. The MINURSO map of WS uses the same sentence.
5) I reformulate: I wonder if you really don't have any idea?! Are you

telling me
that you don't read press? I know the rationale of those nations: there

wasn't, there isn't and there will never be a government of SADR in the
WS. Me too I can assume that the 54 nations (who recognized the SADR)
did what they thought was in the best interests of their countries. I
wait your response.
Morocco is a Kingdom. Democracy isn't our subject of discussion.
6) Some people think that Jesus Christ is the Father God. Please name
me one person who isn't Christian and does believe this (It's just
an example and religions aren't our subject of discussion). You can
read in Minurso reports that the only concerned parties in this
conflict are Morocco, Polisario Frent and Algeria. Morocco has his word
to say in the conflict.
7) Organisation of Liberation of Palestine used the same sentence when
it proclaimed the state of Palestine and the 22 Arab nations recognized
this state. Was Palestine by then a state? Palestine isn't a state,
that's a fact.
If recognition of SADR by 50 countries was rightful why didn't the
other 140 countries of the world do the same? Why didn't the UN do the

same? Why did 24 nations cancel their recognition of SADR?

I think that your sentence "Because he was a racist that called
political dissentors sub-human?" Is a «crass and asinine»
assertion, I refuse to continue the discussion about Hassan II.
Don't you see the contradiction in this?
"-The SADR government isn't recognized as the legitimate power in

Western Sahara.
-To put a government that isn't recognized by the international
community is POV.

-It is appropriate to put the SADR flag on the infobox. "
I'll ask you a question and please respond me by Yes or No without
any argumentation: Is the SADR recognized by the international
community as the legitimate power in WS? Yes or No?
8) By then I don't understand why:

[justi...@gmail.com]

1) Sahrawis don't identify as Moroccan, or else they wouldn't be living
in refugee camps in the middle of the desert. That's not "a POV",
that's common sense. If they considered themselves Moroccan, they would
be happy living under Moroccan jurisdiction. The Polisario aren't some
fringe group in Sahrawi society - they are internationally-recognized
as the legitimate spokespeople for the 170,000 refugees. The Moroccan
interpretation of the ICJ directly contradicts what the ICJ explicitly
says. Crass and asinine do not mean stupid. If you need help with
English words, consult http://dictionary.com.
2) The government of SADR does have some legitimacy, because it
fulfills the requirements for a state as spelled out in the Montevideo
Convention. To use your own terminology, to say the SADR doesn't have
any legitimacy is "a POV." Your use of the word "(in)adquate" is at
least confusing and at most ungrammatical, as you haven't explained HOW
it needs to be adequate or according to what standard.
3) The text is irrelevant, as it is used on several maps. It has
nothing to do with the boundaries of Morocco at all.
5) I read the press that said that South Africa and Kenya recognized
the SADR within the past year. And there is a government of SADR in the
region as we speak. I have no idea what response you could possibly
want from me.
6) Your example is sheer nonsense, since a Christian is BY DEFINITION
someone who believes in Christ's divinity. It's logically impossible to
be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God. You said that some
people believe the Sahara is Moroccan, and that some of those people
are Moroccan themselves. Who are the rest of these people that you
claim exist? Why do you insist on not answering this simple question?
7) The State of Palestine is not a government, because all of its
authority comes from Israel devolving power to it. The SADR doesn't
rely on Morocco to devolve authority (of course, Morocco never would).
There is no way to answer why most countries don't have recognition of
the SADR other than to reiterate what I've already said: most of them
are ill-informed and/or disiniterested in the topic. The UN doesn't
recognize the SADR because it is trying to mediate the conflict. This
is the same situation as the OAU prior to Moroccan withdrawl. Now
you're being a hypocrite. You said that we shouldn't resort to personal
attacks, and then you level one at me. This is absurd. You're wrong
with your tautology, since the SADR does have recognition.

[Daryou]

1.) What do you think about the sahrawis who are living under Moroccan
jurisdiction and sahrawis of Tindouf camps who reintegrated Morocco?
What do you think about the legal ties of allegiance between some
tribes of the region and the sultan of Morocco?
Crass and asinine do mean stupid. I confess that I really need help
with English words and I use Babylon who gives me the definition
"stupid". The 2 words are personal attacks according to your
dictionary.
2) What is the Montevideo Convention? This convention was signed by 19
states at the Seventh International Conference of American States in
1933. For further information; you can look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention. This convention
doesn't mean any thing to me.
The SADR doesn't have any legitimacy. I explained HOW in my precedent
points 5 and 7.
3) According to you, some texts added in UN maps are irrelevant, and a
text speaking about boundaries in the UN map of Morocco has nothing to
do with those boundaries at all?!
5) You are political science major in IUPUI. You hope to possibly
become a social studies teacher. You are interested in "Polisario's
struggle for liberty" and in independence movements. You seem to know
every thing about WS in the past, present and future and you do have
19th century maps of the region, but you don't know why those
countries cancelled their recognition? It seems to me that you maybe
don't want to know (or that you do know but don't want to give us
some of your Knowledge).
6) I agree with you when you say that a Christian by definition is

someone who believes in Christ's divinity. It's logically impossible to

be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God. But no one else other
than Christians believes that. Does it mean that Christians are wrong?!

I personally have many friends who aren't Moroccan and they think
that WS is Moroccan. Many of the tourists who visit Moroccan Sahara

think that WS is Moroccan.

I'm just a physician, I'm interested in history of North Africa but
I don't have enough time. I confess that I don't have enough
information about the governmental positions of other countries of this
world; it seems to me that most of them are ill-informed and/or
uninterested in the topic. And I can only assume that the 50 countries
that recognized SADR did what they thought is in the best interests of
their countries. I think also that you have some idea of the French
position (You've already spoken about what you called a pro-Moroccan
French position)
It seems to me that you finally recognized that the only concerned
parties in the conflict are Morocco, Polisario, and Algeria, didn't
you?
7) When the State of Palestine was proclaimed in Algiers, Israel
didn't even recognize the PLO at all, and no powers were devolved to
Palestinians. And the Arab countries has recognized this "state".
I agree with you when you say that the UN doesn't recognize the SADR

because it is trying to mediate the conflict.

You didn't answer my Yes/No question. If you refuse to respond, just
say it.
8) I'm still waiting for a response to my question 8.

[justi...@gmail.com]

1.) There are certainly some Sahrawis who prefer Moroccan
administration, I won't deny that, but they make up an insignificant
minority. The vast majority simply do not see themselves as Moroccan,
and they understand themselves as having a separate ethnic identity.
The legal ties of allegiance between some tribes were largely born of
economic necessity. Plus, they were only with some tribes, and not all.
There was no national identity for all Sahrawis prior to Ma el-Ainan,
as far as I'm aware, and so no tribal leader could be said to have
spoken for all of the people of the Sahara. Legal ties were probably
similar to Chinese suzerainty with Tibet for some tribes and were weak
economic alliances with other tribes. The kingdom of Morocco had to
negotiate these on a tribe-by-tribe basis, rather than dictate that all
tribes obey, meaning they clearly did not have sovereign control.
2.) The Montevideo Convention is frequently cited in international law.
During the period of colonization (including 1933), there were only
fifty entities that could be called states at the time, so 19 is not an
insignificant number.
3.) The text is irrelevant to this SPECIFIC situation, since it is
GENERIC text inserted in maps that have nothing to do with the
conflict. It is a disclaimer that is not particular to the Sahara.
4.) I honestly don't know why any of these states cancelled their
recognition. I cannot recall a single reason why for any one of them.
In fact, I tried to look up Madagascar's on the Internet today and
couldn't find it. I *wish* I knew.
5.) Okay. This is better. Now, can you tell me of one person who is a
relevant authority from a country other than Morocco that thinks the
Sahara is/should be Moroccan? Because, as far as I'm aware, there
aren't any. There are some Americans that think Taiwan is American, but
they are not trustworthy sources nor are they in positions of power to
dictate policy. Many tourists who visit the Sahara think it's Moroccan
because Morocco told them so. If they don't know better, of course they
will think it's Moroccan. Thinking it IS Moroccan is entirely different
than thinking it SHOULD BE Moroccan. I know that the French gave
material, military, and financial support to Morocco to bomb innocent
Sahrawis, and throw napalm on fleeing refugee mothers and children, but
that was also at a time when French nationals in Mauritania were being
held hostage by the Polisario. The only concerned parties are not the
three listed, as at least Mauritania is a concerned party. The AU is
also highly concerned, as is the UN.
7.) If you want me to give you a single word answer, it is "yes."
8.) I've responded to this point several times:
The first sentence is true, because it is true that the ONLY government
that ANY state considers legitimate is the SADR. The second is false,
because NO state (nor the UN, nor the AU) considers the Kingdom of
Morocco as the rightful power in the region.

[Daryou]

* I see that after 10 days of dialectical process we finally agree
upon the following points:
1. SOME Sahrawis self-identifie as Moroccans (at least one), and SOME
others NO (at least one).
2. There were ties of allegiance between the sultan of Morocco and SOME
tribes of the region (at least one).
3. The SADR is recognized by 55 countries. And SADR is a full member of
the AU.
4. 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR.
5. There was a national identity for all Sahrawis with Ma el-Ainan
6. The only concerned parties in the conflict are Morocco, Algeria,
Mauritania, Polisario, UN and AU (Source: Minurso reports).
7. UN and Mauritania are neutral.
8. Some people other than Moroccans believe that WS is Moroccan but
they aren't in positions of power to dictate policy.
9. 140 governments don't recognize clearly the SADR or the
sovereignty of Morocco over WS. Both of us believe that they are

ill-informed and/or uninterested in the topic.

*Your following arguments need some evidence or clarifications:
1. "MOST of Saharawis don't self identifie as Moroccans" (We need
a referendum to validate this affirmation)
2. "Yes, the SADR is recognized by THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY as the
legitimate power in WS" (please provide your sources, and maybe you
can provide us your definition of "the international community")
3. "The text in the bottom of the UN map isn't relevant".
4. "FRENCH GAVE MATERIAL, MILITARY, AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT to Morocco
to BOMB innocent Sahrawis, and throw NAPALM on fleeing refugee mothers
and children". (Please provide your sources; and I wasn't aware
that Morocco has Napalm).
* I believe that you'll give me some day an answer to my question
8 that I could accept.

[justi...@gmail.com]

I appreciate the gesture of good will.

I don't agree with this:

6. The only concerned parties in the conflict are Morocco, Algeria,
Mauritania, Polisario, UN and AU (Source: Minurso reports).

Other interested parties include Spain and France.

9. 140 governments don't recognize clearly the SADR or the
sovereignty of Morocco over WS. Both of us believe that they are
ill-informed and/or uninterested in the topic.

Furthermore, all other governments don't recognize the sovereignty of
Morocco over the Sahara.

1. "MOST of Saharawis don't self identifie as Moroccans" (We need
a referendum to validate this affirmation)

Erik Jensen's book, Western Sahara: Analysis of a Stalemate and my
personal correspondence with Philip Coggan, a member of the MINURSO
Voter Identification Committee both say that the overwhelming majority
of Sahrawis would vote for independence. This is precisely why Morocco
insisted that tribes in southern Morocco be included in the referendum.

2. "Yes, the SADR is recognized by THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY as the
legitimate power in WS" (please provide your sources, and maybe you
can provide us your definition of "the international community")

Inasmuch as ANY power is recognized, it is the SADR. The international
community at large is disinterested in the topic, but the regional bloc
for Africa, the African Union recognizes the SADR, and furthermore,
some countries outside of Africa recognize them.

3. "The text in the bottom of the UN map isn't relevant".

Since that exact same text is present on other maps unrelated to the
conflict, then this text is unrelated to the conflict. The UN has
repeatedly said that it doesn't recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the
Sahara, so it only stands to reason that the internationally-recognized
borders of Morocco are what the UN understands to be Morocco.

4. "FRENCH GAVE MATERIAL, MILITARY, AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT to Morocco to
BOMB innocent Sahrawis, and throw NAPALM on fleeing refugee mothers and
children".

This is recounted at length in Tony Hodges book, Western Sahara: Roots
of a Desert War and briefly in Toby Shelley's Engame in Western Sahara:
What Future for Africa's Last Colony.

[Daryou]

Thank you, I see that we are progressing; I still have some questions:
1. Was Spain and France included in Minurso reports as concerned
parties? Please provide some evidence.
2. Over the 195 countries of the World: The SADR is recognized by 55
countries (And SADR is a full member of the AU), 24 countries cancelled
their recognition of SADR and 140 governments don't recognize clearly
the SADR or the sovereignty of Morocco over WS. Do you agree?
3. "Self identification of Sahrawis": Do you think that Erik
Jensen and Philip Coggan are the mouthpiece of Sahrawis? I can't read
those books, please provide me an internet link if possible. And
remember that Polisario was struggling for years for this referendum.
Honestly no one can be sure of your point until the referendum is held
(after all the aim of this referendum is to precise the amount of
people who do or not self identify as Moroccan).
4. "Recognition of SADR by The International Community as the
legitimate power in WS": I don't agree with you when you say that
"International community at large is disinterested in the topic"
The UN and Some Superpower nations (USA and France) are really
interested in the topic. Resolutions of the Security Council about WS
were voted by 15 nations each time. International community isn't the
African bloc. I confess that the voice of Africa is often unheard in
international assemblies (that's another problem). Please visit the
page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community for further
information.
5. "French gave material, military, and financial support to Morocco
to bomb innocent sahrawis, and throw napalm on fleeing refugee mothers
and children": I would like to read those books; I never knew that
Morocco attacked camps in Tindouf inside Algeria with napalm. I have
serious doubts. Such an action could launch a war between Morocco and
Algeria!
6. I see that we are not willing to reach a consensus about this famous
sentence in the UN map. :)
See you!

[Justin Knapp]

Thank you.

1. Was Spain and France included in Minurso reports as concerned parties? Please provide some evidence.

I don't know that MINURSO considers Spain and/or France as concerned parties. I'm using that term in a colloquial sense to mean that they have something to do with the conflict, rather than implying that they are key players in the UN's efforts to mediate.

2. Over the 195 countries of the World: The SADR is recognized by 55 countries (And SADR is a full member of the AU), 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR and 140 governments don't recognize clearly the SADR or the sovereignty of Morocco over WS. Do you agree?

There are 194 states, including the 191 UN members, Holy See (Vatican), Taiwan/Republic of China, and Western Sahara/SADR. Of the 193 that are not the SADR, 55 currently have diplomatic relations with it, 24 previously did, and 114 never have. Of the 193 that are not Morocco, 193 have never recognized Moroccan sovereignty.

3. "Self identification of Sahrawis":  Do you think that Erik Jensen and Philip Coggan are the mouthpiece of Sahrawis? I can't read those books, please provide me an internet link if possible. And remember that Polisario was struggling for years for this referendum. Honestly no one can be sure of your point until the referendum is held (after all the aim of this referendum is to precise the amount of people who do or not self identify as Moroccan).

Jensen is not the mouthpiece of the Sahrawis - he's a Briton as I recall, and Philip Coggan is definitely from the UK. Jensen was the head of MINURSO, though, and was intimately involved with the proceedings from 1994-1998. Philip worked on the MINURSO Voter Identification Committee in the late 1990's to 2001. Jensen's publisher's site is here: http://www.ipacademy.org/Publications/Publications.htm You can read the table of contents here:
http://www.rienner.com/viewbook.cfm?BOOKID=1444&search=Western%20Sahara
While Jensen is not the mouthpiece of the Sahrawis, Polisario is. And Polisario wants independence and claims that the majority of Sahrawis do, too. If the majority of Sahrawis didn't want independence, the referndum could have just been the territory and the refugees, and Morocco would own the land without dispute.

4. "Recognition of SADR by The International Community as the legitimate power in WS":  I don't agree with you when you say that "International community at large is disinterested in the topic" The UN and Some Superpower nations (USA and France) are really interested in the topic. Resolutions of the Security Council about WS were voted by 15 nations each time. International community isn't the African bloc. I confess that the voice of Africa is often unheard in international assemblies (that's another problem). Please visit the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_community  for further information.

The UN is intimately involved via MINURSO, but most countries' governments aren't involved themselves. Most of the Security Council votes were simply to extend the mandate of MINURSO.

5. "French gave material, military, and financial support to Morocco to bomb innocent sahrawis, and throw napalm on fleeing refugee mothers and children": I would like to read those books; I never knew that Morocco attacked camps in Tindouf inside Algeria with napalm. I have serious doubts. Such an action could launch a war between Morocco and Algeria!

I apologize if I wasn't clear: the airstrikes happened inside the territory and inside of Mauritania while they were still in the war. One airstrike of French planes piloted by the FAR killed dozens of civilians being held captive by the Polisario in Mauritania.

6. I see that we are not willing to reach a consensus about this famous sentence in the UN map. :)

Well, if "reaching consensus" means "agreeing with you" I'm willing to agree if you can explain to me why that exact same text is on those other maps, and how, if they are on those other maps, they are in any way relevant to this particular situation.


--
o_____
| \_____|
| _)_(* _|
| /_____|
|
|

http://wsahara.net

For Taiwan, Tibet, West Papua, Western Sahara, and a reunited Republic of Cyprus

[Daryou]

1. We agree that the only concerned parties according to the Minurso
are Morocco, Polisario, Mauritania, Algeria and the AU.
2. It's only a question of wording.
3. You didn't provide internet evidence and I still can't read those
books (I honestly have serious doubts about your ressouces after the
napalm affair) Maybe further precisions are necessary, who knows?
I think that if the polisario wasn't backed by Algeria and formarlly
Lybia , Morocco would own the land without dispute.
Maybe we agree that We aren't completely sure about the amount of
people who don't self identifiy as Moroccan until the referundum is
held.
4. You say that "SADR is recognized by The International Community as
the legitimate power in WS" and that "International community at large
is uninterested in the topic and The UN is intimately involved via

MINURSO, but most countries' governments aren't involved themselves.
Most of the Security Council votes were simply to extend the mandate of

MINURSO". Honestly I feel some contradiction !!!
5. So finally there is no napalm!! Maybe there is no civillians killed
at all, who knows? I honestly have serious doubts about your
ressources.
6. Maybe you can provide us your answer for the question "why that
exact same text is on all UN maps?"