The Arab spring has refocussed attention on one of the region's most intractable conflicts, writes Graham Usher Earlier this month Noam Chomsky said he believed the current wave of revolts in the Arab world began last November in Laayoune, capital of Western Sahara, the formerly Spanish Saharan territory illegally annexed by Morocco in 1975. Sahrawis had set up a camp protesting their living conditions. It was crushed by the Moroccan army. According to Polisario -- the movement for Sahrawi self-determination -- 36 civilians were killed, and hundreds wounded. Morocco said 12 were killed, including 10 soldiers. The UN could verify neither claim. Minurso, its peacekeeping mission in Western Sahara, has no mandate to investigate human rights violations in the disputed territory. In any case, it was denied access to the camp by Rabat. The clash at Laayoune was the worst violence in Western Sahara since 1991, when a UN ceasefire brought to a close the Polisario's 15-year armed struggle for Sahrawi independence against Morocco. Not all would agree with Chomsky's genealogy. Tunisians say Mohamed Bouazizi's self- immolation last December was the true heir to the Arab spring. But Chomsky is not alone in tracing the ties that bind Africa's newest revolutions to its oldest colony. In his annual report to the Security Council requesting a renewal of Minurso' mandate, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon tied a similar bow. Protests across North Africa calling "for increased political and economic rights have given rise in Western Sahara to new challenges to stability and security which may have the potential to alter the conflict's status quo," he said. He cited Laayoune. Minurso was set up in 1991 to observe the ceasefire and organise a referendum among Western Sahara's inhabitants that would decide the territory's final status. The truce has held, more or less. The referendum hasn't moved. Since 2004, Rabat has ruled out any option for the territory except "autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty". Polisario says any referendum must include the option of national independence if it is to truly reflect its people's wishes. The UN is neutral. But -- mindful of the regional turmoil -- Ban in his report acknowledged the people of Western Sahara "are more central than ever to the search for a settlement that will be just and lasting". And he accepted "this population has not clearly and convincingly expressed its view." Caught between positions of Morocco and Polisario, the result is stalemate, on the ground and on the Security Council. And it's entrenched. African states, along with countries like Britain, tend to back the Polisario line on self-determination, and recognise Western Sahara as a full member of the African Union. France, always and everywhere, backs Morocco, and brooks no solution except autonomy. This is partly due to historical ties as Morocco's former colonial master. But the main reason is the economic interest it shares with Rabat in plundering the territory's rich resources of phosphates, fisheries and, potentially, oil and gas, as well as keeping rivals, like Algeria, at bay. Through France, Morocco has enjoyed an Israeli- like veto on the peace process. And, like Israel, it has used the blockage to flood the territory with around 250,000 Moroccan settlers against around 150,000 native Sahrawis (100,000 or so more live in exile, many in camps in Algeria). France and Morocco may like the status quo but it can't last. Laayoune showed how easily Western Sahara can blow. And the regional tide of people protests is against the Moroccan occupation, with their core demands for freedom, accountability and, above all, human rights. Even in the UN there is a sense that Western Sahara can no longer be the "forgotten war". Recently the Office of the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) proposed that Ban's report include a call for an independent human rights monitor to be part of Minurso's mandate, rectifying an anomaly in which it is the only UN peacekeeping mission in Africa without one. France and Morocco lobbied successfully to have the call expunged, but not before OHCHR's text had been leaked to all 15 members of Security Council. Many said they supported the amendment. Finally, there is the embarrassment Western Sahara causes the Security Council's newly discovered activism in the region. In March the council authorised military intervention in Libya in the name of "fulfilling the legitimate demands of the population" and enabling "immediate access to human rights monitors". France was one of the most vocal advocates of the resolution. "How can you bombard Libya in the name of human rights but exert no pressure for them in Western Sahara?" asked Ahmed Boukhari, Polisario's UN representative, outside a recent council session. It was a question no member could answer, including the French. Minurso's mandate will be renewed sometime this month. There will be no call for it to include UN human rights monitors. But there will likely be new language in the mandate "stressing the importance of improving the human rights situation in Western Sahara". Some, like the British, see this as a step forward. France in the past has opposed any mention of human rights in Minurso's brief. But -- as Philppe Bolopion, UN advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, notes -- allowing "the words 'human rights' in the resolution can be seen as meaningful progress only if translated into concrete mechanisms to monitor and protect the rights of Sahrawis". Polisario, as ever, sees a cup half empty and half full. It laments the weakness of Minurso's mandate but takes heart from Ban's report. The new emphasis there on respecting the "people's wishes" not only reflects the influence of the Arab spring, says Boukhari. It leads back to a referendum, which both Polisario and Morocco agree is the only mechanism for deciding Western Sahara's final fate. But organising a referendum will require an independent human rights monitor, says analyst Renata Capella Soler. "Without guarantees for the scrupulous respect for the rights of expression, association, assembly and movement it is unlikely that a fair and free referendum can be held whose result will be accepted as legitimate by the population of Western Sahara."
