Judging Statehood

There is a basic set of guidelines that come out of the 1933 Montevideo Convention. A number of American states met to discuss the duties and rights of states. The treaty that was ratified has set the standard for how we define a state and basically amended the way we view the state system. This was the major marker of states and the international system since the peace of Westphalia in the 17th century.

 The three basic de Jure state requirements are; sovereignty, borders, and a people.

Firstly borders that a clearly defined are an essential part of the modern state system. A group like al-Qaeda can not be considered a state because they do not have a clearly defined territory, quite down you pan-Islam supporters. Next, a group of people; so the center of the Gobi desert does not have a population and therefore can not be a state. America for example has both borders and a defined population.... Americans! Lastly a government of monopoly of force across those people within those boundaries; A state needs a government a source of control. The type doesn't really matter as long as there is some sort of political rule over the area.

While these three are basic de Jure state requirements there is an essential de facto requirement; International recognition. This is where becoming a state is tricky. Many places which have a people, boundaries, and a government do not have international recognition. Somali land and Kosovo are both areas which are slowly gaining acceptance from other states.  The number of states who recognize a newly formed state and the influence of those accepting have a lot of weight when it comes to determining if the alleged government actually represents a state. International acceptance currently results in an invitation to join the United Nations. Next I will apply some test cases to determine if current states meet these requirements.

The Last Colony

                       This article is a continuation of my two major themes. Statehood and Modern colonialism. Turns out Western Sahara has major elements of both. The statehood question ill analyze later but the Colonialist issue is easy to tackle. The territory of Western Sahara was actually part of the major European colonial power grab in Africa. Late to the table Spain took over the area of Western Sahara around 1884. This colonialist occupation was slow and very hands off. The Spanish stayed mainly on the coastal areas and didn’t have many Spaniards in country. This hand off colonialism continue until the post-world war two de-colonialist effort.

                   During the liberation of Africa the Spanish had planned to release Western Sahara but forces in morocco and Mauritania invaded the territory and attempted to occupy it. The Polisario front represented the native Sahrawi move for independence and they eventually defeated Mauritania. The Moroccans replaced the Spanish as controllers of the territory. They had marched an army into the territory and claimed that they were reuniting old Morocco. The United Nations and other international organizations called for liberation of the Sahrawi people. Algeria took up the Sahrawi cause and supported the independence movement. The area of Western Sahara is still under the control of the Moroccans and is one of the few colonies still intact and under the control of another country. Western Sahara is the last holdout of colonialism in the modern world.

Western Sahara : Arab Spring ?

           I recently read some interesting comments by Noam Chomsky on the Arab Spring. He promotes the Idea that the Struggle of Self-governance in Western Sahara is part of the Arab Spring. He puts forth the Arab spring is identified by two factors: first that the issue is of a socio-economic nature. In the majority of the countries with these Arab spring protests it is evident that economic issues played a huge role in the developing protests and in some cases the overthrowing of governments. Next that the fight against authoritarian governments. Mubarak, Ben Ali, and Sahel all can be shown in an authoritarian light. Each could be classified as authoritarian rulers.

            In Western Sahara’s struggle for self-governance both of these factors still apply. The socio-economic conditions of Western Sahara are similar and in most cases worse than the majority of North Africa. Being one of the poorest countries in the world with serious economic issues it is easy to link this to some of the areas unrest. The rule of Mohammed VI underwent some minor reforms during the Arab Spring but not nearly and of the drastic changes that were called for. The very wealthy king is not really shown as an example of authoritarian government, but his dynasties rule could be classified as such. If the Moroccan rule of Western Sahara is considered an occupation or as outside control is would be easy to link the desires of some Western Saharans for self-governance with that of the protests of the Arab spring.

               Personally I see this conflict as a last holdout of colonial and not really in the context of the modern Arab spring. But Noam Chomsky’s point is very interesting and does make a lot of sense.

Also theres a really good conversation going on > here about this subject