<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Absolutely,</p>
<p>Let's focus the threat and future movements of the community
trying to fix the Spanish maritime area close to Ceuta andMelilla
which were removed unilaterality some time ago.</p>
<p>Let's try to find a proper source to redraw them or, I guess, we
could restore the limits removed.<br>
</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Miguel<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/05/2021 16:20, David Marín
Carreño wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHPETy5AmCKsvtca4COFQFEbtdVahOqdOKq7dh=gFSd-RnWm4g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Hi all.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I think we shouldn't mix Western Sahara with
Ceuta, Melilla and other Spanish places of sovereignty in the
North African coast, as they are totally different cases.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ceuta, Melilla and the other small Spanish
places of sovereignty are officially and de-facto controlled
by Spain.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Western Sahara, as you said, was abandoned by
Spain in 1975.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This thread is only about the status of Spanish
territorial waters of Ceuta and Melilla and the rest of places
of sovereignty.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best regards.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El lun., 3 may. 2021 11:21,
Philippe Verdy <<a href="mailto:verdyp@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">verdyp@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">The problem of Wesern Sahara is that its status
at the United Nations has been left undefined, when Spain
abandoned it when it was a colony, without organizing the
transition with their inhabitants to choose their future. So
Morocco claimed it (along with Mauritania, that abandoned
its claim after seeing that it could have troubles with
Algeria, and seeing that it could not sustain the military
forces that only Morocco could sustain, leaving all powers
to Morocco).
<div>At the United Nations, this is still a land to
decolonize by Spain, but Spain does not want to invest
more in this area. It just chose to pass an informal
agreement with Morocco (in the hope that Spanish claims on
Melilla and Ceuta would be respected). Morocco's claims on
Western Sahara was based on an historic claim when Morocco
was still not united and had several powers, that were
united later. This is debatable, because most parts of
Westerne Sahara were never in control of the older
(smaller) current rules of the Moroccan kingdom. Before
independance of Morroco, that brought its unification, it
was a trust of France, which had a peace agreement with
Spain since long, and the Moroccan kingdom did not violate
the agremeent between France and Spain there. The Morrocan
claim on Westerne Sahara was an later extension for
political reasons to give strenght to the new of the fully
independant Morroco. As well France did not want to be
involved there (avoiding new conflicts with Algeria) and
did not defend the old agreement with Spain.</div>
<div>But it's a fact that Western Saharan were never
involved in the process to choose their own future: they
were not involved in the independance of Morroco, but they
had more relations with Mauritania, Mali and Algeria.
Their own local political system was largely based on oral
traditions and peaceful trades with various nomadic people
in this area, and not ruled forally by any former
kingdom, just nomadic chiefferies. The exceptions being in
a few harbours that evolved to cities now invaded by
Morrocan troups (based on the illegal agreement between
Spain and Morroco, not ratified formally and without any
instrument to the United Nations, where it was never a
country since the creation of the united Nations or the
former Society of Nations that preceded it, where Morocco
did not participate).</div>
<div>It's an area without formal right. Just a
defacto situation with conflicting political claims, where
no voice was given to Western Saharan inhabitants (even if
legally they should still have a Spanish citizenship and
rights to be represented locally).</div>
<div>It's difficult to state any legitimate right without
involving the inhabitants, but now most of them are
refugies living in surrounding countries, where they have
more local right than inside Morocco. It's a common
problem for many minoroties living in anouther countries
without their own locals represented in legal
institutions. May be Morocco could have become a
federation of states, but the new independant Morocco
wanted to adopt a centralized system. And both Morocco and
Algeria (the two major players involded now) cannot decide
themselves, and instead insist on consolidating their own
countries, where they legitimetely think that they have no
other choices to satisfy their majority population (even
if they have minorities, some of them represented
inequally, but others not at all). Morocco has started to
recognize the rights of Berbers (Algeria too). But Peul
peoples are left behind, And only Arabs are well
represented (and by using the religious language of Islam
as the only legal language, even if Arabs were themselves
former invaders of the region (after Greeks, Romans, and
later the newer European regimes, when there was still no
international right anywhere in the world...).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Moroccan claims are inherited from old rights before
the creation of international order (not effective before
the end of the 19th century).</div>
<div>Time has passed. We cannot reinvent rules based only on
historical people that lived there. We have to live with
present people, even if we share multiple values of the
past with multiple cultures and many migrations. Those
that made the history are not those that ruled what would
be our present (of course, present peoples were never
represented, but today, it is only these present people
that can decide on their current life and prepare the life
of their descendants, without necessarily taking all
decisions for them: any successor can decide differently,
they have new problems to solve collectively, and they
should not inherit of the past conflicts: it's our current
colllective responsibiltiy to give peace to our children
and later descendants, and not transfer them the cost of
past conflicts; and there's only one way to solve it: all
people living today need to be represented and should have
the right to organize themselves and be respected by
recognizing their organizations instead of fighting them
using old laws and brutal forces).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-es mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-es@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-es@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-es mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-es@openstreetmap.org">Talk-es@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-es</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>