Why does South Africa embrace piracy and reward terror?

Once upon a time, countries cheered when conflicting parties agreed to put down their weapons, come to the negotiating table, and resolve disputes diplomatically. Responsible governments condemned terrorism rather than reward it. That’s the way it should be. Increasingly, however, South African grandstanding and a judiciary willing to put partisan ideology above law threatens to derail international processes, reward terror, and effectively encourage piracy. Perhaps it’s the African National Congress re-embracing its Marxist roots, or maybe the influence of ideologues disdainful of blind justice and sanctity of property, but something is very, very wrong in South Africa.

Mohamed al Wali, 65, a Polisario fighter, stands next to a Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic flag at a forward base on the outskirts of Tifariti, Western Sahara, September 9, 2016. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

The problem starts in the Western Sahara, a former colonial territory and, for a time, a Cold War hotspot, which is the subject of dispute between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front, an authoritarian, Marxist puppet group set up by the Soviet Union and Cuba and still used today as a proxy by Algeria’s military-dominated regime. The Polisario Front claims to lead the self-styled Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which runs itself out of a cluster of refugee camps in Tindouf, Algeria, home to perhaps 40,000 Sahrawi with origins in the Western Sahara, and a number of others from Mauritania, Algeria, and elsewhere. Algeria and the Polisario have for a quarter-century refused to allow a UN-mandated independent census which would determine the national origin of camp residents. They also refuse freedom of movement to the Sahrawi refugees, although some camp residents make the perilous journey through the desert and across international borders through Mauritania and into Morocco. Historically, Morocco’s case for suzerainty over the Western Sahara is strong. In short, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is about as legitimate a state as the old Apartheid-era Bantustans of Ciskei, Transkei, or Bophuthatswana; that is, not at all.

In recent months, and against the backdrop of a power struggle to dominate the group after the death of its decades-long ruler, the Polisario has upped its violence and violated a decades-long ceasefire in order to occupy a no-man’s land and ‘tax’ international trade along the route between Morocco and Mauritania. Morocco refused to engage and the UN Security Council demanded the Polisario’s withdrawal, something the Polisario did when they understood they would find no reward in military aggression. Polisario activists then embarked on a new tactic: They made the spurious argument that foreign shipping containing products derived from the Western Sahara belong to the Polisario. When Polisario activists demanded Panama impound and seize the cargo from a Danish ship, Panamanian authorities basically laughed the plaintiffs out of court. The Panamanian government and court recognized that allowing self-styled governments and groups to seize shipping amounted to privacy. Groups like the Polisario would then use the proceeds to finance terrorism and the lavish lifestyle of the Polisario’s politburo, and the precedent could disrupt diplomacy worldwide. It decreed that the Polisario had no “jurisdictional competence” in the matter.

South Africa, however, has put politics above justice. One day after the UN Security Council asked both Morocco and the Polisario to resolve their dispute “without preconditions and in good faith,” Polisario activists requested South Africa seize the cargo vessel ‘Cherry Blossom’ after it made an unscheduled stop in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, carrying phosphate; South Africa agreed. In the meantime, the African Union, representing more than 50 African countries, reaffirmed that the UN was the proper forum to resolve the Western Sahara dispute. Even Sweden, whose ruling party has long embraced the Polisario’s fictions, now has done an about-face to recognize that Moroccan suzerianty over the Western Sahara makes the most sense for the Sahrawis. This is especially true after the Polisario was caught in a scheme to embezzle international assistance.

Rather than fight in what increasingly appears to be a kangaroo court proceeding in South Africa, the ship’s owners today declared that they would not participate in the South African judicial proceedings, arguing instead that the court has no legitimacy to pursue the question of whether the Polisario Front should be able to seize the Cherry Blossom’s cargo.

What South Africa proposes to do is misinformed and counterproductive on a number of levels.

What South Africa proposes to do is misinformed and counterproductive on a number of levels. It is tragic for the people of Western Sahara. One hundred percent of the profits from Phosboucraa mine whose product the ship was carrying are invested into the local community, and 50 local Western Sahara companies subcontract with the firm, creating even greater employment. More than three-quarters of the work force is from Western Sahara as opposed to the rest of Morocco. In addition, Phosboucraa abides strictly by the UN legal framework and international law with regard to natural resource exploitation. Morocco, itself, is not motivated by greed. Less than two percent of Morocco’s phosphate exports originate in the Western Sahara and the Moroccan kingdom spends more per capita on residents of the south than it does on any of Morocco’s other regions. Over the past couple years, Morocco has also decentralized its government in order to expand Western Sahara autonomy. What South Africa is doing isn’t about defending the Sahrawi, international law, or justice because the Sahrawi have more freedom in Morocco than they do locked by the Polisario in the camps the group administer. Rather, what the South African government proposes to do is all about reviving the populism and Marxism which brought so many states in the region to ruin.

Professional activists are also playing skittles with the lives of the people they claim to represent. That was the case when Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) activists pressured SodaStream to shut down its factory in the West Bank, where Jews and Arabs worked side-by-side with equal pay. And that is now the case with the Polisaro’s supporters in South Africa.

After all, why should a group of questionable legitimacy put down their guns when they can instead hope some judge somewhere will hand them a winning lottery ticket?

The real danger, however, is in international precedent. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic isn’t the only would-be state out there seeking international recognition. Many states and activists recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian and Kurdish nationalist movements, even if the United States and European states condemn the terrorism in which some factions of those movements engage. There are any number of other would-be states out there, however: Catalonia and the Basque region in Spain; Corsica in France; Baluchistan in Iran and Pakistan; Tibet and Xinjiang (or East Turkestan) from China; Ogaden from Ethiopia; at least seven separate movements in northeast India, and a dozen more elsewhere on the subcontinent. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If the South African court seizes the Cherry Blossom’s cargo to hand it a Marxist hold-over in a dusty corner of Africa, then it effectively is declaring open season on international trade and an end to talks as the primary means of resolving conflict. After all, why should a group of questionable legitimacy put down their guns when they can instead hope some judge somewhere will hand them a winning lottery ticket? OCP, the parent company of Phosboucraa, is right not to indulge the South African government in its judicial and political theater. Rather, the rest of the world should recognize that what South Africa proposes to do is nothing short of piracy, an assault on diplomacy, and sponsorship of terror.