Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 10 January 2006

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Page move

Anyone who disagrees with this page move, please make it known below. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong disagree. This page is about the foreign relations of the territory/entity Western Sahara, and the relations of SADR is only one, albeit defining, part of that. The page details the Moroccan argument, the UN's viewpoint, etc, and not only foreign relations of SADR. A move would be counter to the purpose of the page and would require deletion of important information. Arre 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Agree. This page is talking about foreing relations of SADR, the important information you are talking about are redundant and can be found in other WS related articles. Any way if you say that this page is talking about WS, the infobox should be without flags to comply with WP principles of neutrality. Daryou 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Disagree Clearly, this page is not just about the SADR, rather it is about the region. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

It would be nice to have sources to support the recognitions. It could be an extra field in the table? - FrancisTyers 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

===>As they come I've cited them as I've amended this page, but if you'd like, I can try to find more. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, its not a high priority for now as I don't think any of this is disputed. If you come accross sources it might be worth while noting them. Nip possible future disputes in the bud. - FrancisTyers 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a need for evidence about recognition of SADR by Lybia, Syria, Angola and Botswana. Daryou 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

List of country recognitions of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara

Justin, it is considered quite rude to simply revert an edit as well sourced as this without discussing it on the talk page. You'll note that his edits are sourced, the ones in the table are not. Pasted list below. - FrancisTyers 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This list is based on several sources and may be incomplete:

1. Argentina
2. Angola
3. Botswana
4. Cameroon
5. Central Africa ,
6. Chile
7. China
8. Colombia
9. Ecuador
10. Egypt
11. Equatorial Guinea
12. Gabon
13. Guinea
14. Indonesia
15. Iraq
16. Ivory Coast
17. Kuwait
18. Libya
19. Madagascar
20. Malawi
21. Peru
22. Senegal
23. Serbia-Montenegro
24. Swaziland
25. Sudan
26. Vanuatu
27. Yemen

List of country recognitions of the SADR

Suggestion

If we have two long lists or tables this page is going to get unworkable soon. I suggest making two list of articles, e.g. List of states that recognise SADR sovereignty of Western Sahara and List of states that recognise Moroccan sovereignty of Western Sahara. Then we can have these as {{main}} articles and just give an overview on this page. - FrancisTyers 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is okay with me. It'll be more work to update the articles whenever something changes, but if it can prevent conflict it's fine. Arre 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's OK wth me too. Daryou 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Are these names ok, or are thre any other suggestions? - FrancisTyers 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that List of states that recognise SADR and List of states that recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, are more accurate. Daryou 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for principle and readability, please don't use "SADR" in a page name, use the full Sahrawi Arabla bla. Arre 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Still opposed Since this page's content is clearly about the large amount of perspectives regarding the region, rather than simply one position or another. Splitting it into two articles seems counterproductive, as it would not be what users expect when they do a search, and either article would only have a stub-like amount of information. Justin (koavf) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources & Numbers

• 1. About the table of SADR recognitions, I suspect that it is originally modelled on this page. I don't think it is perfectly updated, though, and possibly it is selectively interpreted in favour of Polisario. The WikiPedia list I believe is more accurate, but this is a good place to start, since these countries have all at some point recognized WS.

• One thing that should probably be mentioned in the article in connection to this, is that Polisario/SADR sometimes gives a higher number for state recognitions, possibly because they a) interpret "frozen" relations as still recognizing WS; b) mean that a recognition is a one-time affair, and you can't take it back (when you formally recognized that something exists, you can't very well change your mind and pretend it doesn't) or c) are aware of official relations between SADR and countries who are not on our lists, which they interpret as recognizing the SADR's validity as a government.
• This does of course not imply that Polisario diplomats are necessarily correct in these assumptions, but it could be cited as a statement by a party to the conflict.

• 2. About the table of Morocco recognitions. I haven't read every link, but I know ArabicNews.com is a notoriously unreliable news agency. It basically copy-pastes (often with very poltiical editing) from Moroccan, Saudi and some other official news agencies, and I'd rather see that we had the original sources than the ArabicNews.com redrafts.

1. In this list, I find it somewhat suspect that they note for example Libya as a country that recognizes Morocco's claim on Western Sahara -- since Libya simultaneously and explicitly recognizes Western Sahara (I know a Polisario guy who was there on a working visit during some sort of seminar just last month). Maybe Qadhafi is changing his view, but as far as I know, there's no official note on that.
2. Also, see the thing on Angola, from the state Moroccan news agency: the MPLA-led Angola is EXTREMELY supportive of SADR, and there is no way they presently recognize Morocco's claim, what ever MAP.ma says (there's even an active Sahrawi embassy there now, and I've met one of the people working there. I think she would have noticed if it was closed).
3. Further, the source on Yemen is wishy-washy at best, with no quote of the purported support at all, and indeed explicit support also given for the UN's efforts (i.e. not recognizing sovereignty). That said, I don't know where Yemen stands. I'm not sure they do either, after reuniting (the North didn't recognize SADR, the South did).
4. Iraq: some Iraqi official stressed his support for Morocco's territorial integrity, that's all it says. There's no quote, and no reference by the Iraqi to WS, even though the MAP - not surprisingly - mentions it just after that, to imply there is a connection to what he said. Was there? I don't know. Maybe he just said something about the importance of territorial integrity for all Arab countries (referring to Iraq/Kurdistan) - the MAP certainly wouldn't think twice about using this as proof of support. Anyway, I don't doubt that Iraq could support Morocco (under Saddam they had some weird plan to reclaim the Tiris al-Gharbiyya for Mauritanian Ba'thists :-), but I don't think this link is any proof of that.
5. Peru. The article refers to a Peruvian member of parliament, who heads the Moroccan-Peruvian friendship association. It makes no mention of official government backing for his statements.
6. Etc. Etc. Etc. Now, I haven't checked every link in the list, but all the ones I read seemed unreliable.

• 3. Point being - I don't think that list can be taken at face value, but perhaps the SADR list shouldn't be either. Still, of course, conflicting claims by either side could and should be cited. But to present something as fact, I think we need pretty reliable quotes from top-level dignitaries or official dates etc for the recognition ceremonies. Arre 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. We should have good sources. Preferably from the horses mouth, that is from the respective governments. Neither list is at the moment taken at face value, which is why both are on this talk page. :) - FrancisTyers 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arre wrote that Arabicnews "basically copy-pastes (often with very poltiical editing) from Moroccan, Saudi and some other official news agencies", I really wonder what could be for you a reliable source if arbicnews wasn't? I invite you to read and check every link, not make some amibigous comments about some of them to attack the reliability of the whole list. I confess that the link about Angola doesn't say clearly that it recognizes Moroccan souvereignty, but those of Senegal, Egypt and Arab league...etc was very clear and there is no place for interpretation. Actually only my list is completely sourced, the SADR one isn't. Daryou 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I already answered that. A good, reliable source would be a statement from the respective government. If Arre disagrees with Arabicnews then that is no problem, you can presumably find the original statement, or a statement published on a more neutral source, perhaps Reuters, AFP or the BBC? - FrancisTyers 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Daryou: (Oh, FrancisT was quicker. I agree with the above... :-)

• Well, as far as news agencies go, AP or Reuters would feel better, or even MAP.ma (since that's where ArabicNews gets all its Moroccan news). ArabicNews.com is just an Internet service, as far as I know, that rewrites stuff from real news agencies, in the process making it less clear who said what. More often than not, it does so with an over-the-top political slant.

(Clarification of that: I don't think MAP is a very good source of anything, but it's better than ArabicNews, since it's the original source for most of their news. Arre 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

• I don't say all the links are bad, but I think we can agree that some are. I agree that this could be the case with SADR links too, and I agree that sources are a good thing. I just wanted to point out that several of the sources for that list did not say what the list intended them to say. I'm sure you agree with me there.
• Now, that's the problem with unserious news media such as ArabicNews.com: it will present anything said by anyone as confirmation of its political agenda. The Polisario's SPS (www.spsrasd.info) frequently does the same thing, and I don't respect it as a serious news agency either - even if it is a good way to get information on Polisario, from a distinct Polisario perspective (ArabicNews is also useful for me, the same way, to find out how a Moroccan nationalist perceives reality).
• Also, if that wasn't clear, I want to say that I think any link is valuable, since it nuances and fills out the picture, even if it does not provide real proof for either side. Peace, Arre 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is a need to source Countries recognition of SADR and Moroccan souvereignty. Actually there is no neutral reliable source for the SADR list. I provided sources for the Moroccan list from MAP and Arabicnews, the 2 sites are surely biased and pro-Moroccan, however they report quotes from officials of respective governments.
• There is a difference between quotes and interpretations. Surely MAP and Arabicnews will interpret in a pro-Moroccan way any quote. But the quote is there and every WP reader can read and interpret it. For example: In an article about the position of Nicaragua we can read this quote :"as long as the referendum process is underway, the Nicaraguan foreign ministry, backed by President Arnoldo Aleman, suspends all relations with the polisario front and the SADR". Every reader can understand that Nicaragua doesn't recognize Moroccan Souvereignty, If Arabicnews was lying, they could easliy interpret it as a recognition but they didn't. Arabicnews didn't say also that Albania recognized Moroccan souvereignty , there is many other axamples. I just invite you to read all the quotes in my linked sources and make your own opinion. If you don't accept some of them, let's discuss it.
• I invite you to provide sources and evidance for the SADR list, and we'll talk then about their reliability. I see that Arre doesn't trust Arabicnews and even MAP, Me too I don't trust all SADR sites. Daryou 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arre already said that :P The Polisario's SPS (www.spsrasd.info) frequently does the same thing, and I don't respect it as a serious news agency either. Lets get sources from reputable news agencies :) - FrancisTyers 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do Arre and Koavf think about it? In that case only SADR recognitions reported by reputable news agencies we'll be sited in the article and in all WS related pages? Daryou 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hold on, now. Most of the SADR recognitions were done in the 1970s and early 1980s, and we're unlikely to find much about that on the Internet. The list I pointed to gives a solid date for every such recognition (same as on the WP list), and I've seen similar lists in written literature. I'll try to find one of those books, and we can use that as a basis to compare the WP list with, if Daryou is uncomfortable with ARSO. Also, I think ARSO.org is censored for all Moroccan and Sahrawi Internet users, which makes it kind of problematic as a reference in this debate.
• I suggest we stick to the lists we have on WikiPedia, and then anyone who wants to contest a recognition (of SADR or of the Morocco's Southern Provinces-thing), should provide sources to back this up. Scrapping all the information we have, especially since no-one has seriously questioned that information before, doesn't seem productive to me.
• So, what I mean, is that I'm all okay with Daryou's list in principle, but I wanted to point out that some of the sources do not seem reliable, are not clear enough, or do not provide very significant references (such as that Peruvian MP and minor representatives). This is a problem, since we do not have any formal dates of recognition for these countries. In these instances, the government should be removed or, better, resourced. I do think that Daryou's list could be reasonably correct (excepting some wildly-off-the-mark cases, such as Angola, where MAP is obviously just lying), and it shouldn't be impossible to reference this properly.
• If there is a list available from MAP, ArabicNews or the Moroccan government, we can use that the same way: checking it against the sources. I don't know if there is, though. Arre 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>A few things to bear in mind In addition to the unreliability of arabicnews.com, they use vague language, don't quote sources, and provide virtually no context for what may have been said. If a head of state says that he "respects the integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco" that could mean several things:

• He thinks the Sahara should be annexed.
• he thinks the Sahara should be partitioned.
• He thinks Ceuta and/or Melilla should be handed over from Spain.
• He thinks the plazas de sobeirno should be handed over from Spain.
• He thinks the Canary Islands should be handed over from Spain.
• He thinks all of the Sahara, Mauritania, half of Algeria, and some of Mali should be annexed.
• He thinks the Moroccan state, as is should remain a legitimate geo-political entity.

So, without context, which one of these (if any) is he saying? Incidentally, I agree with the last statement, and disagree with all of the others. Justin (koavf) 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FLAGS BEFORE NEWS (caps)

First of all!!! How come we got flags here?!!! I am removing both of them per consistency. One problem is fixed. Tackle another one guys! Cheers -- Szvest 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What? Why no flags here? I think showing both Morocco's and Western Sahara's flag is perfect for this page, since it covers both countries' legal and foreign policy relations to the area. Uncontroversial and informational - could it be better? I won't do anything about it, though... have it your way :-) Arre 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is nice but it is ridiculous. Foreign relations of France, Foreign relations of Spain, Foreign relations of the United States are all flag-free. Indeed, who decided that the RASD flag to be on top? Cheers -- Szvest 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Why no flags? Clearly, this is about the politics of Western Sahara - the SADR and Morocco. I have no problem with both being presented, as this is clearly a matter that affects both political entities. Justin (koavf) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)