Talk:Royal Advisory Council for Saharan Affairs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is an attempt to describe the CORCAS. More to comme soon. wikima 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

===>Sources This would be a great time to start adding sources. I know that I have some bookmarked at home about CORCAS from the Morocco Times. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Considerably expanded this now, but agree about the sources. I'm afraid much of what's most useful will be in French, but there should be some stuff about it on MAP and in the Moroccan Times; also, Polisario condemnations and general mockery of it won't be too hard to find. I might also go about creating an article on that clown, Khalli Henna, if I can muster the energy. Arre 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Also agree about the source. Please we should stuck to this rule.
CORCAS is laready active and operational. It does request any international recognition because it does not need it. It has been received by the president of China permament memebr of the Security Council source. Therfore no need to underline the international apect of the thing in order to push a negative impression.
The article is about CORCAS and not about what polisario or any other people or insitutions thinks of CORCAS. 1) This must be at the centre and at the beginning of the description. 2) I left polisario's position on the CORCAS (propganda thing etc...) but will add on the page of polisario, "SARD" and separatist entities the Moroccan view on them.
We don not want to treat any people as clowns but keep the spiriti of an international encyclopedia. There are view on MOhamed Abdelaziz which are worse than clown.
The father of Mohammed Abdelaziz is memebr of the CORCAS. I think this is important to mention. He lives in Morocco and is an activist for the Moroccans Sovreignty on the Sahara.
I am not a native speaker. So please feel free to correct the English. However please lets discuss changes as is the use in this world and lets avoid any editing war. Thankswikima 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm all for avoiding an editing war, and most of your additions are great, although we should -- as we both agree -- source both mine and yours.
  • That Khelli Henna is a first-rate political clown, is, while undoubtedly true, my personal opinion, and not something I would put in the article ... and I respect that you may feel the same way about Abdelaziz. I'm not too fond of him either, to be plain. No position on the dad, though.
  • The issue of international standing/legitimacy for the CORCAS is immensely important to the subject, since Morocco is obviously trying to use it to replace the referendum: if the CORCAS was internationally recognized as a representative body of the Sahrawi people, that could be legal (i.e. count as an exercise of self-determination, and thus close the decolonization file). Ergo, it is important to know that there is no such legality now -- just as it would be important to know if the UN or other bodies in the future decided to extend such legal recognition. Meeting with the Prime Minister of China does not mean international legality, btw, just as Abdelaziz's meeting with Kofi Annan does not mean Polisario is henceforth the recognized government of Western Sahara.
  • The Moroccan view on Polisario and SADR I think is already present on those pages, but if it is not, you should certainly add it. Since there are two competing claims, their views of each other are relevant info -- here with Polisario's condemnation of the CORCAS, just as with Morocco's condemnation of (or rather refusal to acknowledge the existence of) the SADR.
I appreciate the kind tone of your post. I hope we can cooperate on expanding this article rather than attacking each other's edits, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on the issue. Arre 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Arre, fine. I like you way of editing, especially that I am not a native speaker.
  • While reading fast I have the impression most of it is on how polisario or "sahrawi" see CORCAS.
  • I have major concerns about the legal status section.
  • CORCAS does not seek international recognition. After only afew week after its re-creation:
1/It has been already received by the president of China in a time where his country is heading the Security Council.
2/It has been received by the Foreign Minister of France an other SC state.
3/It is doing well in Spain, contacting relevant people and institutions
4/The reporting about this is not only in Moroccan papers. Not to mention the algerian propaganda which is just going mad.
  • Polisario's view can be mentioned but should not be oversized. It is important to mention that it does not represent the opinion of the sahrawis living in Tindouf.
  • Have little concerns about the other sections and their focus. Will have a detailed look.
  • Will definitively add the Moroccan and other critical views on polisario and "sadr". Things must be symetric
  • The links/sources are also mostly pro-sepraratist. This I will certainnely change.
  • Will avoid to mention how some people treat Mohamed Abdelaziz. Not the purpose of my efforts here. Cheerswikima 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Ok I had a look:

  • 10% of the paragraph "Legal Statut" is negative about CORCAS (denying it any international capacities)
  • 90% is the position of polisario.
  • Please stuck to the principle of neutrality
  • I already wrote that CORCAS does not need to be recognised as it is a Moroccan body.
  • CORCAS is - whether you, algeria and polisario like it or not - already internationally active
  • This paragpraph be deleted immediately.
  • I'll replace it by "International Activities" and tell the facts.
  • I will try to gather information on the institutional structure etc and add here.
wikima 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Other changes:

  • Occupied replaced by controlled which is more neutral. Morocco doe not consider that it occupies a territory which is part of it. And the "control" is far more than military. It is like any other state govrens one of its regions.
  • The members of CORCAS are not only notable cheikhs and politicians. Many of them are from the civic society. Some had even suffered prison and opression under Hassan II. And many do not share to 100% the Moroccan position although remain against an "indepedant" state which would be in reallity just a pupet of Algeria (as polisario and "sadr" already are.
  • Again this general reminder and remark: This is not about the positions of polisario nor "rasd" or any of these entities. This is an article on CORCAS. Of course subjects have common parts, but not in the way that we use a first line on CORCAS to write a book on polisario and what it thinks.
  • An other general remark: CORCAS is not to be compared with polisario or any of such organsiations. It is explicitely an apointed and not elected body. The King of Morocco has already created or initiated several royal and national bodies that were dedicated to central question of the Moroccan nation. Among them [http:ier.ma IER - Instance Equité et Réconciliation] and CCDH - Conseil Consultatif des Droits de l'Homme for the question of the human rights, IRCAM - Institut Royal de la Culture Amazighe for the Amzighe question, a commission that dealt with the Moudouwana, a reform of the family code, and others etc. All these bodies have different missions, structures, compositions, time frames etc. CORCAS is one of them. wikima 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Slow down, please. I can't take in all this at once... :-)
  • Polisario's opinion on CORCAS. Polisario's view should be mentioned, simply because it is the main other party to the conflict. You have the Moroccan position (that CORCAS represents the Sahrawis) and the Polisario position (that it doesn't). I agree there shouldn't be too much on this, but then again, the creation of CORCAS is more or less because of Polisario, so you can't leave it out either.
  • Sahrawi opinions on CORCAS. I would assume the overwhelming majority of the Tindouf Sahrawis (and most of those in the territories) think exactly like Polisario on this. But I couldn't source that claim, just as you couldn't source the opposite, so I see no reason we should mention anything at all about it, until we get access to free and fair opinion polls of Sahrawi attitudes to CORCAS. (And that won't be anytime soon.)
  • Membership of CORCAS. I'm sure the members of the CORCAS have many different opinions, but on the question of Western Sahara, they all share the basic tenets of the Moroccan state's thinking (i.e, no to independence). That's why they're appointed. Re: membership, we could also mention the fact that some of the members were apparently appointed despite being dead since many years. There are some amusing articles on that in Tel-Quel or possibly Le Journal Hebdo.
  • Legal status of CORCAS. You mention a number of Moroccan political bodies that have advised the king and/or government on various issues, and I agree there is no need to mention the status of these organs in international law. They don't need any such status, since they have nothing to do with anything outside of Morocco's borders. But CORCAS is different, since it is intended as a body representative of a region which the international community has refused to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over. This brings up two issues where its (lack of) legitimacy is important:
(a) Morocco clearly wants to use CORCAS to get around the self-determination clause, which the UN has interpreted as meaning a referendum among Sahrawis (or Western Saharans, depending on which peace plan you prefer). The international view of CORCAS is that it is not entitled to represent the Sahrawi people, and so cannot replace a referendum -- see Kofi Annan's latest report, for example. Both this Moroccan intention, and the international response to it is worth mentioning.
(b) Moroccan rule in WS, as you know, lacks any international legitimacy, and Morocco has never been recognized as sovereign in this area. (This is a simple fact, whatever you think of it.) That also means that the practical decisions of CORCAS in relation to the territory have no international legal status, since they are part and parcel of the Moroccan rule. So, CORCAS can make no legitimate deals with outside forces -- no matter how many Chinese Premiers they meet with -- and their decisions in a Moroccan context holds as little legal power as any Moroccan decision on Western Sahara.
  • International agenda of CORCAS. That it lacks legal powers over Western Sahara does not preclude us from writing about the international activities of CORCAS. They are indeed extensive (France, China etc). I think this is an important thing to mention, although not necessarily in pinpoint detail, since part of the reason for CORCAS's creation was PR -- and these trips are precisely that.
I'll hear your thoughts on this before I edit again, but I stand by most of my latest edits. Plus, we could always change phrasing and stuff, of course, and there's an infinite room for additions. Arre 04:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Polisario's opinion can be mentionned in a separate section next to reactions. There are other reactions in Morocco as well where the CORCAS has surprised many of the nationalists. The discourse of CORCAS can be seen as a change of paradigms in the way how Morocco now handles this question. If you want to reduce this and many other aspects just to "propaganda" but quoting polisario's position (eternal "niet"), then sorry, this is not only non neutral but off-topic.
  • I think the Sahrawi opinion about polisario, especially those in Tindouf , is extremely bad. The organisation claims to represent them but has failed to resolve the conflict. The result is that they are kept in Tindouf like animals while their cousins and family members enjoy freedom on the Moroccan side. polisario has 30 years old structures, similar to those in Cuba and NorthCorea and rooted in old communist ideology. It allows no other opinion and is based on a system of insider deals. Sahrawis know that it is a puppet of the Algerian regime, that every thing is decided in Algeria and that polisario it has no freedom to decide. Of course if you go there from time to time as a someone from the European or American civic society, you welcomed and you find it romantic to be with sahrawi children in the desert. Polisario would show you how the people suffer, and that's fairly easy, since showing misery of people is not a complicated art when you have kept people in it for decades. But try to live there for one or two year and not as someone who comes from the wealthy north.
  • Again CORCAS is an explicitly non elected body, it can not make decisions and has mainly a consultancy role, just like the other bodies I listed above. The King basically can name anyone he likes but he has tried though to be as open minded as possible. It is worth to mention - at least in the discussion - that the King had asked the political parties to deliver their views on the question of the Sahara and the autonomy. With the CORCAS he is including the Sahrawis in this process and letting them playing a major role in the shaping of this autonomy. What will be subject to election, democratic process, political dynamic etc, is the local government and political structures and institutions. CORCAS is just helping to prepare all that.
  • I would like to expand the section on the membership but no with rumours. I've heard of the information/rumour that dead people were named in CORCAS. If there is no evidence that it's a rumour that I don't believe. If you can read TelQuel and Le Journal Hebdo (The latter is a special case and has demonstrate lack of professionalism in many cases) then I invite you to enjoy this interview: http://www.telquel-online.com/222/interrogatoire_222.shtml .
  • Sorry to say that but you are completely wrong about the legal status. On whose sovereignty is polsiario's legitimacy based? NONE, nothing. Has it been elected? Nope. It is recognised as partner in the conflict though.
a) The missions of CORCAS are clear and Morocco can create and develop as many bodies and intitiatives as it wants to resolve this conflict. Morocco is no more under Hassan 2, it has become pro-active by doing suggestions, being ready to talk etc. and the international public opinion globally welcomes such spirit and rejects radical, mulish and rigid thinking and behaviour. The UN has de facto buried the Baker Plan. The referendum stands for self-determination and this can be reached through other ways as well. Morocco plans a referendum on the autonomy, which of course will be just a burlesque for you an polisario
b) As said polisario is based on zero sovereignty; it is internationally active though. And CORCAS does not make decisions, but supports the Moroccan state who does.
  • Agree with no not too many details on international activity. However, in the beginning it seems important to underline that CORCAS will not sit around in a tent and wait. PR is very good. Morocco failed in this for long years as it followed an other strategy under Hassan 2 and D. Basri, leaving the field almost free for polisario's propaganda and romantic supporter.
Cheers wikima 11:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Some truth in here Sahrawis overwhelmingly support the SADR and Polisario, at home and abroad. That's what visitors will tell you, and the international community recognizes them as the legitimate representative of the national aspirations of the Sahrawi people. The Sahrawi opinion about Morocco is the one that is bad, since they are the ones that caused the refugee situation, as they instigated war. The Sahrawis in the Moroccan side are free to be arbitrarily arrested and be prisoners of conscience. They are free to have lower literacy rates. They are free to be used as political pawns. If that's freedom, I think I'd rather live in a refugee camp, personally. No one knows what a fully-independent SADR would be like, but Polisario has committed to multi-party democracy and a free market economy. The same can hardly be said of Morocco. Also, in case you weren't aware, Polisario existed prior to Algerian intervention, and Algeria was actually hostile to Polisario for a few years. Algeria supports the Sahrawis because they know Morocco's expansionist war-mongering first-hand. Polisario is not sovereign; it is a political party and nationalist group. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a government, and it is that organization that is recognized as independent. The Moroccan king wasn't elected, either, in case you weren't aware. The UN didn't bury the Baker Plan; Morocco did after they had already agreed to it as the basis for negotiation. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Justin,

  • I responded to Arre just to let him understand that there are other thoughts and positions not only his.
  • The wikipedia article you intend to use as source is mainly edited by sourself and Arre, so no need to guess its political direction. I could also quote you other sources, even from people and institutions who used to support polisario.
  • If you intend to start/developp a polemical war then this is really the wrong place.
  • For this reason I will ignore what you wrote although I could write tens of lines as a reply.
  • Only one thing which is related to the topic: polisario is not sovereign and is based of NO sovereignty of anyone, though it is internationally actrive. Formally, although not to be compared with polisario, CORCAS does not need to be from regions where sovereignty of Morocco is internationally recognised in order to be internationally active. wikima 17:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay. Wikima,

  • Arre and I both know that people disagree with our positions. In point of fact, the two of us have gone through votes, diatribes, and edit wars with other pro-Moroccan editors in the past.
  • The fact that we wrote the articles doesn't make them untrue. To assume so is bad faith. We source our edits, and if you want to disprove something, come up with a source to disprove it (see, for instance, the Talk:Free Zone (region) discussion.)
  • I don't want a war; you're the one that instigated this with your propaganda. We've gone through this several months ago when you started vandalizing pages, and I see that nothing's changed since then.
  • If you want to reply, go for it. I have a talk page, and I would love to read what you have to say.
  • Clearly, you're not grasping the subtleties here: no one is claiming that the Polisario are sovereign; they are a political party. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized as the rightful government of the Sahara by dozens of governments. I have no idea what the phrase "is based of NO sovereignty of anyone" is supposed to mean. Neither CORCAS nor Polisario need to be from anywhere in particular to be politically active. They're politically active if they have an impact in government. This is true of terrorists, diplomats, military juntas, and legislators. Some of them are legitimate, some of them not. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Justin, when I have time I will reply. But not in the moment, sorry.
  • Not polisario's Mohamed is in CORCAS but his father. I've read some where that he was one of the vice-presidents, but this is tbc.
Cheers wikima 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Both - please don't use this page for a political debate. I would be happy to discuss the issue away from Wikipedia, but on the talk page we should stick to debating the Wiki entry. If anyone feels tempted to respond to the purely political statements you have both made above, just don't.
  • About Abdelaziz's father, yes, he is in CORCAS. He's incredibly pro-Moroccan. And if we didn't spend this much time debating each other, we could even join forces to find a proper source for that.
  • About the dead CORCAS delegates, we should simply report and source the fact that there is a credible allegation (via Tel-Quel), plus the Moroccan response (Khelli Henna interviews). It's not our job to find out what the truth is; that would be original research.
  • Can we agree to focus on the last edit that was disputed (wikima removing my text) and on finding either sources (English preferably) or new facts? Though I'm fine with leaving the page not much bigger than this. Arre 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand

  • It is not fair to abuse of one's absence to push pro-polisarian POVs
  • What does mean puppets? What does mean fascist?
  • If we would proceed in the same way with the other parties involved in the conflict we would be able to quote all kind of negative comments. It's no problem to put on the page of polisario that they are merely mercenaries in the eyes of not only the Moroccan State but in the eyes of all Moroccans. Etc.
  • So please, again, this page is to explain CORCAS, its mission, its role, its structure, etc. and not to express an opinion, directly or indirectly.
Thanks for respecting the spirit - wikima 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitions, etc.'
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/puppet Puppet - "a person, group, government, etc., whose actions are prompted and controlled by another or others."'
Fascism - "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I knew that
Thanks though for confirming the POVs
wikima 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? If you knew that, why did you ask? From what POV is it written? Are no political parties Fascists? Should mentions of fascism in Benito Mussolini be removed per NPOV? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Can't you follow man?
  • I don't understand the attitude and the behaviour of people who take every opportunitiy to push their ideological POVs.
Is that clear now??
wikima 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no It's you that apparently can't follow, man. I asked you some simple questions and you ignored them. I never said that editors should push their ideological POV's; that was never a matter of dispute. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So why are ignoring "puppet"?
  • If you "follow" the discussion, man, you would know that Arre wanted already to discredit that "clown" as he named the president of CORCAS
  • Why don't we use the same logic about Mohammed Abdelaziz, a real puppet of the algerian governement, a man that comes form a stalinian ideology, who was supported by countries such as Cuba or Libya in times when this country was supporting terrorism etc.
  • Do you want me to source all this and put in the bigoraphy of Mr Abdelaziz, the man at the power of a phantomatic republic since 30 years? A man who does not dare to even visit his very old father?
  • I can inject you all this with delviering all clean defintions of stalinism, mercenary and one-party dictatorships if you want.
  • And this is why I don't undertand that you allow yourself such things here!
wikima 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Arre And so I'm not interested in defending his edits, nor am I going to read into them any kind of political agenda. Abdelazziz has committed to a free market, the abolition of the death penalty, free elections, and several other ideological contradictions with Stalinism. If you can provide proof that he's a puppet of Algeria, in spite of the fact that Polisario was created with him prior to Algerian involvement and he was in the organization when it was denounced by Algeria, then please feel free to present your evidence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's much better, Justin
  • Lets see what evidence I can gather on him, e.g. reports on war crimes and crimes against humanity commited by his organisation
  • And... he'is nor more stalinist? Is Khelli Henna still fascist [sic]?
  • You see ther so much of the truth to source and to find about this WS topic.
Cheers - wikima 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Nowhere does it say that Khelli Henna is a fascist. Why do you keep on putting random [sic]'s in your posts? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the problem. It does not say it but it brings the president of the CORCAS close to it
  • While the article on Abdelaziz looks liek an article on an angel on not on one who is is reponsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
  • The is the sad thing about all this attitude here. Do you undertsnand finally why I don't understand?
  • If yes then this discussion is now closed for me.
wikima 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
One last thing This conversation is going nowhere about nothing; it's all a tempest in a teapot. If he was a member of a fascist party, and he hasn't renounced that ideology, he's a fascist. Seems obvious enough to me. I should also note that "fascist" as used here is not a political epithet, as PUNS were created by Franco - a self-avowed fascist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the discussion leads nowhere because now we talk about the great humanist, Mr. Abdelaziz.
  • It would be no problem, as already stated, to source his stalinist past and ideological roots, and to present his war crimes and crimes against humanity which are already linked in this wikipedia.
wikima 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC) This


In his interview with Le Journal Hebdo, El Houcine Baïda, a former Polisario member and victim of its Human rights abuses:

  • he did not use the word "occupied".
  • He was complaining about HR issues that he thought should have been addressed.
  • He was giving his own judgement(1/141) of the CORCAS way of proceeding.
  • He was angry with the way Khelli Henna is managing the subject of HR in particular and the Autonomy in general.
  • It shows the degree of freedom of speech that is present in Morocco, and among Sahrawis in particular.
  • The way Arre portrayed the interview, is to make the CORCAS look like a failure, which can't be said by one person. There has been numerous interviews praising the CORCAS. In case you insist on making this here, I will paste a huge amount of interview material that you will surely not be happy with.--A Jalil 15:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


response
As I said in the edit summary: "reinserted baïda interview. when one of the corcas bigwigs claims that he hasn't been allowed to see the autonomy proposal, that's relevant info. feel free to add more for balance if you want."
...and same thing still goes, especially since I rephrased following your (mostly legit) points above. This is obviously very relevant to the topic. If you want to rephrase it, fine. If you think it is appropriate to "paste a huge amount of" flowery quotes from the MAP about the greatness of all things CORCAS, fine. But please don't delete this, because it is relevant and on-topic.
Belatedly, happy Christmas, new years and Eid. Arre 04:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism" section out of scope

  • I have removed the whole section labled "critcism" as it is merely the position of one of the members of CORCAS, or lets say, the position of one person ins this world.
  • This is an attempt by Arre to express his position against the body and to discredit it (be honnest Arre).
  • The section cites only one source, Le Journal Hebdo, a publication of a few pages which is a fanatically against the Moroccan monarchy (and apparently the only Moroccan paper Arre knows and reads).
  • Other papers have covered this "criticism" and regretted for instance that the Person (Mr. Beida) only reacted this way and specifically in this paper (Le Journal Hebdo) for personal intersts as he obviousely lost any elections or fights for political power in Laayoune or what ever.
  • So this is not the place for such cheap accounts.
wikima 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is such cheap argumentation, I won't even bother. At least you used to be a little more subtle before. Controversial criticisms of the CORCAS, by an important member of the CORCAS, is by definition relevant to the CORCAS article -- period. Your mind-reading skills and insights into his electoral plans notwithstanding. Reverting. Arre 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


  • This is one member of CORCAS. And the structure has 140 members. It's even less than minority.
  • If you think criticism is only about negative things then you're wrong.
  • So, if you plan to present the opinions of the members of CORCAS and of the political class in Morocco, then you would want us to abuse of wikipedia for such things, and it would not be a too big effort to shovel stuff from MAP and official communiqués.
  • Just let me know what you want and we proceed.
  • But if you think, quoting an unhappy member of a structure who speaks in an uhappy magazine is that sexy then you misunderstand Wikipedia.
  • Until we decide, I'll remove that one-sided nonsense.
wikima 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Folks, again, this is wikipedia and not an article to debate criticism!
  • If we were to present what every single member and media thinks of CORCAS ans other stuff then articles wopuld be nonsense and we shal call this thing everything but an encyclopaedia.
  • Arre, look for some web space and create yourself a polisario page. That would meet rather your needs than this place.
wikima 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyal_Advisory_Council_for_Saharan_Affairs_6c8c.html"