Marocko invaderade Väst Sahara 1975 och ockuperar området sedan dess.Marocko hävdar att området är en del av Marocko men ingen stat har erkänt Marockos rätt till området och FN:s säkerhetsråd har krävt att Marocko lämnar området.
Det finns alltså ganska många likheter med omvärldens syn på Israel och dess förhållande till västbanken/Judéen och Samarien.
Trots detta behandlar EU Marocko och Israel och deras ockupation helt olika.
EU har nyligen provisoriskt godkänt ett fiskeavtal mellan EU och Marocko som även gäller det ockuperade området.
Detta förfaringssätt står i direkt motsatts till EU:s direktiv för de områden som ockuperas av Israel.
Läs artikeln av Eugene Kontorovich i Jerusalem Post:
New EU/Morocco fisheries deal and its implications for Israel
Conclusions
The
positions adopted by the EU in its negotiations with Israel over grants and
product labeling are inconsistent with those it has taken at the same time in
its dealings with Morocco. While the EU does not recognize Israel’s control over
the territories, and opposes it, the same is true of its policy toward Morocco
in Western Sahara. Yet this policy does not require, nor does international law,
the punitive measures adopted toward Israel.
In particular, the EU has
used entirely fabricated international law claims in its dealing with Israel,
claims contradicted by its own practice and official legal advice.
The EU has in recent weeks provisionally approved a contentious agreement with
Morocco that extends EU-Moroccan fisheries treaties into the territory of
Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. The deal both applies beyond Morocco’s
recognized sovereign territory into occupied territory, and further, actually
pays Morocco for access to the Western Saharan fishery.
On all these
points, the agreement directly contradicts what the EU has called fundamental
principles of international law in its dealings with Israel. Indeed, the EU has
been negotiating this agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israel
unprecedented funding guidelines that say the exact opposite.
... Differences with Israeli agreements
1) Territorial
Scope. The fisheries agreement applies not just to the “territory” of Morocco,
but to all areas under its “jurisdiction,” which is understood to include
Western Sahara. In agreements with Israel, however, the EU has only applied it
to the “territory” of Israel, which is understood to exclude the West Bank, as
well as Jerusalem.
The new Funding Guidelines go further and exclude
entities with operations in the territories.
The guidelines claim that
their approach is required by “international law” to avoid recognizing Israel
sovereignty over the territories. The Moroccan case proves this concern false
and pretextual.
2) Funding. The EU says that its “tax dollars” cannot be
spent in occupied territory. Yet it pays Morocco specifically to exploit the
scarce resources of occupied territory, against the wishes of its political
representatives. This is much more severe than awarding science grants or prizes
for, say, archaeological research in the Golan.
... THE EU Parliament’s
formal legal opinion contradicts position on Israel The agreement was adopted
despite massive opposition from the political representatives of the Western
Saharan people, as well as some European nations. As a result of the
controversy, the European Parliament obtained an opinion from its legal
adviser.
The official opinion, in brief, says international law does not
prevent Morocco from exploiting the natural resources of the occupied territory,
let alone merely doing business there. Despite the complete opposition of the
Sawahari leadership, the incidental economic benefits of “development” (which
the Sawahari deny exists) can be considered sufficient to satisfy Morocco’s
obligation to them. Moreover, the opinion says it is legal for the EU to pay
Morocco to exploit the resources of occupied territory.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar