Western Sahara Case EXPOSES Collective West Hypocrisy | Stephen Zunes

Part 2:

Western Sahara has been under a brutal occupation by its neighbour, Morocco, for decades. And just like in the case of the illegal occupation of Palestine, the Collective West has been super happy to support the occupation for various reasons, mainly because Europe and the US are still colonial states themselves who don't care about international law, human rights, or self-determination as long as they get their share of the booty. Listen to Professor Stephen Zuens explain the conflict and how to use it as definite proof that the Collective West is lying whenever they speak about the special status of Israel. There's really nothing special there. The CW is simply always happy to support settler colonialism when its geopolitical expedient.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies. He has written several important books on the politics in West Asia and North Africa, among others “Tinderbox: US Foreign Policy and the Roots of Terrorism”, “Sudan’s 2019 Revolution: The Power of Civil Resistance”, and the issue we want to focus on today: “Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution”.

[Aussiegeorge]

Friends, we need to be consistent - we cannot say we want the Western sahara Peoples to have the right to a referendum to decide their future and at the same time PRETEND that the people of Crimea and the Donbass dont also have a similar right.. The Russian action was NOT an unprovoked conflict. It was clearly to stop a Government that came to power via a Washington backed coup from slaughtering Russian speaking civilians (from 2104 to 2022 at least)!!!

[asia]

Why would Palestinians recognize a state that don’t recognize them back? Also it’s not for anyone to decide when it’s time to give Palestinians a state they already had one for before the colonist came over they were all living together just fine…they don’t need European consent

[carolberry]

This sounds like some colour revolution. I wish the west would just leave Africa to sort it's own problems out. Please get Africans to talk about Africa. There are more than one colonial finger in this pie.

[hoots]

Keeping your maiden name is common in arab culture, this is not some progressive thing.

[AntonioPerales-bbpm]

In 1970 I caught a Spanish language Polisario Front explanation of their legal and cultural circumstance, as regards Morocco. Years later they still more deserve relief from this unfortunate and inhumane relationship. Trump supports global thuggishness, its in his character.

[dingo]

I think you can just say "the West", which is already a 'collective'. It's so weird to see everyone jumping on a word-hype and following each other like sheep and start saying "collective West". Completely unnecessary.

[arlanpereiralima]

Before Spain occupied southern Morocco, was there anything called independent territory? It was all Morocco. When Spain left south of Morocco it created a problem. Not only is western sahara moroccan, eastern sahara is moroccan and yet to be solved. Stop spreading disinformation

[realvipul]

there is another place in comoros island called Mayotte where french held referendum and annexed it relevant to crimea issue

[alvaronieto]

Great topic, great guest and great information.

[ganyarana]

Great perspective! Thank you for this.

[Relly]

Their practices and customs aren't strange or abnormal. As Muslims our rules come from Quran and Sunnah. Women have always had equal rights, we always keep our fathers name. We always have rights in divorce. He is reffering to culture and every Sunni Muslim even shiates reject culture. It has no place in Islam. It's Haram to take your husband last name that is considered cutting ties of kinship which is forbidden. Your name tells your lineage, your husband isn't your father nor are you his property. That is western idealogy. Everything else he said was fairly accurate. They aren't going to rebel or fight. Obey the laws of the land. Even in oppression there are blessings as Muslims we know that this life is temporary and Allah will give us victory

[samlouhi]

the sahara has been moroccan since it existence, Zunes has no idea what he s talking about, ,,

[RobertOwen-ui]

US recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel shows the same hypocracy.

[jameskidd]

The sahraoui fought to get their independance against spanish occupation when morroco was helping spain and now sahraoui is fighting against the marroco who never ask spain to exite sahara or help sahraoui to free there land in other way morroco is colonial settlers it is simple as that

[odinsrensen]

"Collective West Hypocrisy"
I hate when people say shit like this. I NEVER DID ANY OF THOSE THINGS, I JUST LIVE HERE.

[thomaswayne]

Thank you, Pascal. I'll admit this is the first time I've ever heard of this. Enormously educational and enlightening.

[ralphbernhard]

The long shaddow of Western Imperialism, returns.
The "empires" strike again.

All of this was kickstarted with Western Imperialism, in 1904/05.
The people of Morocco (at the time, 1905) were carved up as a "divide and conquer"-technique and have since 1911 grown up under completely different empires, with different education, loyalties, leaderships, and hegemons.

_One cannot "reverse" such a history, by ignoring the fact that the people today are not the same coherent mass as before 1905, when all were a part of the same kingdom._

Today, it is "divide and rule" yet again, as the USA, dragging along its junior partner Israel, are trying to set up Morocco against Algeria, as "buck catcher" to destabilize the entire MENA region.

Algeria is pro-China.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure 😮
Morocco, which received the "gift" of territory, *per "ruling", * is pro-USA. Its fabulously corrupted rich king, a parallel of the obscenely wealthy Arab sheiks of the post-1960s, also "favorites" of the American Century, and equally, also *tools* in a "divide and rule"-setup of the MENA region...

[bradipous]

Morocco is one of the 2 countries to watch over the Pillars of Hercules, that is to say over the access to the mediterranean sea, I think this is the main reason that explains the US interest in keeping Morocco in its sphere of influence and western cost of africa under control

[canelo]

Western sahara has always belonged to morocco before spain colonized it. Spain didnt like morocco taking it back because they were scared that it might have oil so they funded a islamist pan arab group called polisario. Spain then realised that they are getting way too many immigrants and stopped destabilizing the region.

[ralphbernhard]

At 15:55 and "Morocco has brought in settlers, " is an old imperial strategy, which even Rome practiced.

It sounds so eerily familiar, since it is a common imperialist strategy of "greatly replacing" (😕) an indiginous population with the own ubermensch ingroup...

In the study of conflict resulting out of the migration of large cultural groups, usually as part of agendas or expansion.
*What is presently happening, as a part of a wider conflict going back at least 100 years, is the immigration of a superior culture of lighter skin-colored cultural ingroup, injected onto a darker skin-colored cultural outgroup.*
The favored ingroup coming from outside (people born elsewhere) received land, livestock, and a home of sorts, all based on the advantage of having "friends in the right places", and having more resources at hand for the own aims and goals. In return, they become what the USA did during their own expansion into North America, the "farms/forts", which if "shot at" would always be "just defended", or "shooting back" (strategy from the *"101 playbook of imperialism"* for expansion of the own systems).
*The "settler colonist" (system) is the TOOL of expansion.*
While the existing population was squeezed out of strategically vital areas one step at a time (arable farmland, for example, or sources of water), the faraway controlling political movement sought widespread support from whoever would give it, specifically from very imperialistic indoctrinated "friendly systems", for the own expansive goals. Real or at least tacid support for the "own -ism" is bought from large organisation, like the UN for example.
People who came with the well-wishing of large portions of the "ingroup"-supporters ("-isms"), or at least indifferent/ignorant of the real issues and therefore largely complacent, created a culture of "settler colonialism", creating a "storyline" that if such a settler colonist is attacked in any way, that they will be "just defending themselves". The original imperialist expansion materials/ideological, etc.), of "settler colonialism" being the cause of conflict, is simply never questioned at all...
*Of course, one does not need a cristal ball, or be a Nostradumbass in order to predict that conflict was bound to take place, * in view of previously unfolding similar series of historical events, in other places in the world, where people with an "-ism", emboldened by a feeling of cultural superiority, following a prescibed set of steps as strategy, in order to gain a superior political/economic position for the own "tribe" (tribalism).

When one studies the various perspectives about human conflict, one can't help wondering who is most to blame.
Is it:
1) the various enablers and deciders as executive powers? (leaderships)
2) those who saw financial opportunities to exploit, specifically in case troubles/strife ensued? (opportunists)
3) those who wished to proliferate themselves, advance personal carriers, or similar free-riders, but otherwise had no real POWER as executives? (political expediency of choosing sides)
4) the huddled masses without land, who decided to take the lifeline thrown at them, despite knowing that they were imposing on another already existing indigenous population? (chosen ingroup)
5) the indigenous population, mostly equaly "huddled masses" just trying to eke out a living, but who were never asked what they wanted for themselves as collective? (chosen outgroup)
6) any other, or a different order, since this is an open question

It should not be too difficult to conclude that responsibility for the resulting conflict goes pretty much in the order of 1 to 5, with those mostly responsible being the few "deciders" (as 1). These should not only have been in the position to foresee trouble ahead, but also to acknowledge these foreseeable events, and then search alternatives.


Only...

...the unfolding series of events did not take place in the Middle East, and did not involve London, the British Empire, France, or any other western power.

The conflict mentioned in the first paragraphs, has been taking place with gathering momentum over the past 100 years, is taking place in Irian Jaya (Indonesia) of course.
I hope nobody concluded is was about some other place somewhere else in the world...
The "strategic encroachment" as part of such "outgroup"-agendas must be searched for...
"During the late 20th century Indonesia resettled 300, 000 farmers to the restive province of West Papua, transforming its demographic composition. Such resettlement, or ‘transmigration’, was quite limited until the mid-1980s and restricted to only certain areas of West Papua. What accounts for the incidence of transmigration? Using a panel of all transmigration, ethnic cleansing and demographic change data in each regency of West Papua during 1964-2000 compiled from confidential government sources, I show that, after an aborted Papuan uprising in 1984, Indonesia cleansed and settled its border with Papua New Guinea to forestall cross-border insurgent activity. I then show that after the Grasberg gold mine was opened in 1990 Indonesia cleansed and settled the area around the mine." from the introduction of "Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua", 10 Jun 2020, Lachlan McNamee, University of California, Los Angeles

According to the "NIMBY"-principle, most people actually do not care much about unfolding events far away, so are most likely completely unaware that there even is a simmering conflict somewhere else. According to "NIMBY" however, should the shoe be on the other foot, and the own existence becomes "encroached upon" by an outside migrating group (immigrants/refugees), all of similar background, it doesn't take long for the observed "unease" to begin. Firstly, in the form of lots of moaning and groaning, then if no political action changing the course of events results, the "steps" gradually increase in the level of violence exerted. Firstly there would be randomly organized protests, then larger forms of civil unrest, more property damage, more arson, the first deaths, and so on, and so on, until there is a large scale revolution. Any wise political leadership will always head off such series of unfolding events, but there must be a recognition that action is called for. If not, the series of events *always* follow predictable patterns, regardless of the tier of events, the cultural background of those involved, the gods these people pray to, the ideology, or the language spoken.