The 50-year battle for Western Sahara
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Britain has become the latest country to back a plan to give limited autonomy to the disputed territory of Western Sahara, while keeping it under Moroccan control.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the plan, proposed by Morocco, was "the most credible, viable and pragmatic" way to resolve one of Africa's longest-running and most frustrating regional conflicts.
The dispute over Western Sahara – roughly 100,000 square miles of sparsely populated land to the south of Morocco and Algeria, and to the west of Mauritania – has become an "intricate" and "multifaceted political, diplomatic, and military contest", said Modern Diplomacy.
It's an area "rich in Moroccan culture, Hassani heritage and natural resources", and, following the withdrawal of Spain's colonial forces in 1975, both Morocco and the Algeria-supported, pro-independence Polisario Front claimed it as theirs. Years of low-level fighting ensued until, in 1991, a UN-supervised ceasefire was agreed that left roughly three-quarters of the territory under Moroccan control. The remaining strip is controlled by Polisario, which has declared a "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
For the past 30 years, the UN has been maintaining a peacekeeping mission in the Western Sahara to "monitor the humanitarian and security situation" and ensure compliance with the ceasefire agreement. But "the Polisario Front has not yet adhered to the decisions and recommendations of the UN mission".
In 2007, Morocco submitted its Autonomy Initiative to the UN, proposing that Western Sahara manage its own internal affairs, while Morocco retains control over defence, foreign policy and currency. Though the initiative was warmly received by several African, Arab and European countries, it failed to get formal backing.
Then in 2020, during Donald Trump's first presidential term, the US shifted position and recognised Moroccan sovereignty, in a quid pro quo for Morocco joining the Abraham Accords and normalising relations with Israel. Following the US lead, France declared backing for Morocco's plan last year, ending its "long-standing position of neutrality", said Bloomberg. Spain, Germany, as well as many Gulf States and Egypt have also backed the plan.
Since US recognition of its sovereignty, Morocco has invested heavily in the region, sparking something of a development blitz. After years of conflict and diplomatic stalemate, the area is emerging "as a hotspot for investment, drawing European and American firms interested in fishing, agriculture and infrastructure projects", said The Independent.
"The Western Sahara has gone from a disputed territory that was radioactive to foreign investors to an increasingly normal region that's receiving a growing flow of capital," Riccardo Fabiani, project director for North Africa at the International Crisis Group, told Bloomberg.
Growing international support for Morocco's plan has left Algeria and the Polisario Front "fuming". The group – which some US lawmakers want listed as a terrorist organisation – has vowed to step up resistance and has claimed recent attacks against Moroccan forces near the Algerian border.
Polisario has also "taken its fight to international courts", said The Independent. It argues that Morocco "does not have the right to trade resources belonging to the Sahrawi people, while the conflict remains unresolved".
But alternative solutions seem unlikely. Last year, according to Reuters, the UN envoy for Western Sahara floated the idea of partitioning the territory to "allow for the creation, on the one hand, of an independent state in the southern part and, on the other hand, the integration of the rest of the territory as part of Morocco". Both Morocco and the Polisario Front rejected the proposal out of hand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. What is disparate impact? The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. What does Trump's executive order say? The April 23 order declared that it is "the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are "more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. What is happening with the Sheetz case? The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. What other cases have leveraged disparate impact liability? The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. What's the potential fallout of scrapping disparate impact? The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. "Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law," wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Alexandra Olson And Claire Savage, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
German lawmakers criticize plan to curb refugee family reunification
German lawmakers have criticized the government's plans to suspend family reunification for some groups of refugees. The German lower house of parliament held its first consultation on a draft bill on the suspension on Friday, at which Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt reiterated his desire to limit irregular migration. There is "no single switch that can be flipped to solve the problem of illegal migration," Dobrindt said. Instead, he said, a variety of measures at the national and European level were necessary. His comments sparked outrage from lawmakers from the Greens and The Left party, who argued that family reunification was not irregular migration, but an orderly procedure in which it was clear who was entering the country. Green Party lawmaker Schahina Gambir criticized the planned reform as inhumane, saying that "families belong together" and charging that anyone who blocks legal routes is promoting human trafficking. Clara Bünger, of The Left party, described the draft bill as "anti-Christian" and "anti-family." The proposed bill aims to suspend family reunification for two years for people holding so-called "subsidiary protection status," who are allowed to remain in Germany due to the threat of political persecution in their homelands, despite lacking formal refugee status. The bill says that almost 400,000 residents have subsidiary protection. Around three-quarters are reportedly Syrian nationals. The bill foresees that these people will only be able to bring close family members - spouses, children and, in the case of unaccompanied minors, parents - to Germany in exceptional cases. Family reunification for people with subsidiary protection is already restricted to 1,000 relatives in total per month, unlike for those with refugee status.
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
HBCUs depend on federal funding. Their leaders are walking a tightrope on Trump's DEI attacks
Like many of his predecessors, President Donald Trump has affirmed the importance of historically Black colleges and universities, hailing them as a pathway to careers and a better life for students in the U.S. The schools have not faced cuts to federal grants of the kind that have rocked Ivy League schools Trump has blasted as hotbeds of 'wokeness' and antisemitism, and the president has said HBCUs' core federal funding is not at risk. But that is not to say it's a comfortable time for HBCUs' leaders. As the Trump administration cracks down elsewhere on programs to support underrepresented students, the colleges have been expressing gratitude for the administration's recognition while mostly keeping quiet on its sweeping attacks against diversity, equity and inclusion policies. 'HBCUs, in general, I don't believe are in a position to be adamantly and vociferously opposed to these attacks, but deep down we all know what's going on,' said Deron Snyder, an alumnus of and professor at Howard University. 'It's just how much can you actually say without fear of retribution.' An executive order signed by Trump in April recognizes HBCUs and pledges his administration's support. It calls for an annual White House summit, private sector partnerships, and an advisory board with the Education Department, but it does not guarantee any new federal funding. The order won praise from some Black universities, including Howard University and Morgan State University, as well as organizations that work with HBCUs. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said the order should serve as a call-to-action for corporations, foundations and lawmakers to redouble support for HBCUs and their students. But the colleges' leaders have said little on other administration actions that are out of line with the mission of HBCUs, which were founded to educate formerly enslaved people. The administration's campaign against DEI has encouraged restrictions on classroom discussions around racism and led to cuts in federal research grants . As it threatens to cut federal funding from schools, some colleges have shuttered diversity offices and ended other programs to support students of color. For HBCUs, the moment is reminiscent of the era decades ago when Black colleges were compelled to argue that school segregation was wrong but also needed to maintain government support for their institutions, said Marybeth Gasman, a Rutgers University professor who has studied the history of HBCUs. Black college leaders 'don't want HBCUs to be under the umbrella of DEI, but I don't know any HBCU president who would agree with the way that Donald Trump is dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts,' she said. The Trump administration has cut federal research grants for several universities, pressuring them to comply with his agenda. Since Harvard University refused the administration's demands for changes to its policies and leadership, the government has slashed $2.6 billion in funding, which the Ivy League school has described as retaliation. In an interview in April, Trump told NewsNation that Black colleges and universities should not be concerned about losing their funding. U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama, vice chair of the House HBCU caucus, said there has long been bipartisan support for the colleges. But she said there will be new vigilance of their federal support in light of the administration's record on programs serving minorities. Sewell, a Democrat, said it is also alarming to see the administration move to dismantle the Education Department. 'We'll be pushing back fiercely against that and do all that we can to make sure that our HBCUs get the money that they deserve,' Sewell said. She said the Congressional Black Caucus has been paying close attention to the Republicans' funding plan for a program that supports 19 HBCUs through the Department of Agriculture. Williams, of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said HBCUs have exceeded all expectations of the opportunities they have provided for for underrepresented students. He said he is grateful for the administration's support, but when asked about its actions toward diversity initiatives, he said the administration has challenges it is working through. 'Hard work pays off and education pays off. That's why these institutions are so critical to this country,' he said. 'The realities of those other challenges that we're grappling with right now in terms of what the administration is dealing with as it relates to their priorities, we were just pleased to know that they recognize the importance of what these institutions have done for the country will continue to do in a very deliberate way.' ___ AP journalists Collin Binkley and Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
