EU-Morocco fisheries agreement - an affront to international law
by Raül Romeva
The EU-Morocco fisheries agreement has long been a blot on the European Union's foreign policy agenda. The agreement gives the EU the right to fish in western Saharan waters; despite the fact the government of Morocco has no right to trade the resources of Western Sahara, which is recognised by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory.
Despite this political hypocrisy and legal uncertainty, the European Commission is keen to push ahead with renewing the agreement - which officially expired in February of this year. The commission has currently proposed a temporary one-year extension, with a view to concluding a long-term agreement along the same lines.
Most of the bilateral fisheries agreements the EU has concluded with developing countries are nothing more than coarse neo-colonialism - allowing the EU fishing fleet to pillage the African coast to the clear detriment of the local communities dependent on livelihood fishing. But, the EU-Morocco agreement is perhaps the most odious of them all - with the Moroccan government allowing European boats to fish the waters of western Sahara, which neither the union nor the African country has the legitimate right to.
Thankfully, all is not lost. With the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has acquired new powers in fisheries policy. Not only does any agreement have to be consented to by the parliament, MEPs can also request a legal opinion of the European Court of Justice. Together with a cross-party group of MEPs, we have taken the first step to this end and the Parliament should vote on a resolution calling for a legal opinion in the coming month.
A negative opinion of the ECJ would clearly make it very difficult for the commission to proceed with the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, as currently conceived. In this case, the only legitimate course of action would be to either totally scrap the agreement or to renegotiate the agreement, with a view to excluding western Saharan waters.
It is, of course, unfortunate that it should even come to this. Given the clear evidence that this agreement is illegitimate, the commission should never have sought to renegotiate an agreement on the same terms. Although, it is not too late for the commission to go back to the drawing board and negotiate an agreement that is consistent with the union's commitment to democracy, development, human rights and respect of international law.
In the absence of such a move by the commission, though, it is encouraging that we now have cross-political support in the EP for an initiative aimed at throwing the spotlight on the EU-Morocco agreement. This bodes well for the subsequent consent vote of the parliament, which is now necessary for the agreement to be concluded. The unjust and illegitimate EU-Morocco fisheries agreement will, hopefully, not survive much longer in its current format.
Raül Romeva is a Catalan Green MEP and a member of the Greens/European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament
The prolongation of the Moroccan fisheries agreement gives rise to legal uncertainty on both substantive and procedural grounds. The resolution, which had to be co-signed by at least 74 MEPs, will now go for a debate and vote in plenary. I hope that MEPs will agree to give the court of justice the chance to examine the proposed agreement more carefully than the European Commission seems to have done in its negotiations with Morocco.
Under international law, fishing off Western Sahara is supposed to benefit the people of that territory. The European Court of Justice will have to decide whether or not the agreement meets this criterion. The court will also be asked to confirm that the European Parliament has been fully informed by the commission about the EU's negotiations with Morocco. The parliament has a duty to see that the EU's Treaty obligation to uphold international law is fully respected.
ANDREW DUFF MEP (ALDE, UK Liberal Democrat) - Brussels - European Parliament
Mr Romevo, the saviour of the African coast. If so, you claim, why are you for keeping the agreement as long as it doesn't include Western Sahara? Wouldn't that still be a pillage of the African coast?
And since you are from Spain, what about Sebta and Mellila, what right does Spain have to claim them isn't that the exact definition of the pillage of the African coast? The great inhabitants of these two cities are Muslims not Catholics and do speak Moroccan Arabic.
How can Spain try to paint that with the Spanish flag isn't that the true pillage of the African coast? My dear, Morocco, not Spain, is very real, we are not trying to retake Andalusia back, not at all - we have conceded it is yours, but somehow Spain, which by the way has a lot of people who are friends of Morocco, is now under the threat of the green party and fascists, who won't settle for anything less than destroying neighbours and reclaiming European supremacy over my land.
Hands off; cry, shout, or even take your fishery agreement, but at the end you're hurting the Moroccan Sahrawis, the very people you contend you care for. You are also hurting innocent Spanish hard-working fishermen, who deserve better, and who would if the agreement is cancelled join the 20 per cent of unemployed Spaniards.
As we fight for the unity of our country and its Sahara, I have a lot of respect for the Spanish people and I know they deserve better; they shouldn't have to suffer. Hands off them as well; let us be and let them be. ing to get rich off by forming an imaginary republic? We don't need you, nor the UN to tell us what is the status of our Sahara? The flag is flying and will continue to fly, and will be raised even by the last Moroccan ALIVE. Hands off my land; with or without your consent, we are home--add to that, I was born in the Sahara, southern Morocco.
Hassan - Moroccan Sahara
I thank Mr Hassan for his promise, don't re-conquer Andalusian - why not all Spain as in year 711-750? I, in turn, promise not to try to re-conquer Hispania Tingitania, that was a part of Hispania during the Roman Empire.
Respecting history rights is the basic agreement to a peaceful coexistance. Spanish kings bought to Portuguese kings Sebta many centuries before the Marocco Kingdom appears in history.
Melilla was conquered by Spanish kings many years before Marocco Kingdom appears in history.
Western Sahara never was part of the Marocco Kingdom along the whole history. Israel was recognnised by the United Nations.
Consequently, it is an illegal occupation by foreign army forces. Pillage of fisheries on African costs is, for me, a second level problem. The main problem is the pillage of citizens' life and rights in Western Sahara.
The UN is a non-democratic organisation because some countries have right of veto. If this were not the case, the problem of Western Sahara would have been solved many years ago.
Alfonso J. Vázquez - Madrid, Spain
Dear Alfonso,
You seem to confuse the Arab state of Morocco with the rights of the North African natives who were formed about three thousand years ago. As you are all aware a long time ago, there were no assigned borders, but Tangitana Romana wasn't Spanish, since Morocco itself was Roman, Lexus and Volibilus are just few of the other Roman provinces, but the Roman knew that it was a province only and the whole rights remained with the Berber kingdom who didn't have that much choice, and there was no UN at the time, so they have to settle for receiving money and support in exchange of letting foreign entities to settle in North Africa, so essentially the Grand Maghreb by virtue of the Berber kingdoms had ruled the whole North African region. By such right Ceuta and Mellila are occupied territories whatever is the history--Spain cannot change the fact that 80 per cent of the residents are Moroccan by faith, culture and language. But as I said before, it will not be an easy affair to agree on anything unless Spain regains its right to Gibraltar, which regardless of any other facts is an extension of the Spanish territory and most Moroccans do agree that Spain should be given Gibraltar since basically we do have a similar affair with Ceuta and Mellila. I do respect your views and do sincerely wish that we do engage in sincere dialogue--Spain is a neighbour and a friend and I will not cease to view except from this angle--we have so much common history that even science proved the common Berber gene between our people--in other words, we have more in common than the eye can see. I did laugh at your comment of "why not Spain as is in 711 under the commender Tarik...LOL. I have one more comment regarding that, if you stop seeing Morocco as only Arab and Muslim, then you will see that Morocco also has the non-Arabic identity that was neither European nor Roman, but Berber; in 678 our Berber kingdom was deafeated by the Muslim and our leader Kahina fought till the end, not on behalf Spain or Europe but on behalf a Berber North Africa, that too once ruled Spain and even the whole Meditaranean, refer here to the Berber Roman emperor from Libya Severus; the same way St Augustine, the father of the Christian church is a North African Berber, in fact, Christian begun here here before it crossed to Europe, so these are 'native people to North Africa' in native cities whether they spoke Latin, Berber, or Arabic. History is important, but the goodwill of people and nations to create peace and opportunities for their own citizens should be the priority, and in this sense accept greetings from a good neighbour and a friend.
Hassan - Moroccan Sahara
Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy is not an easy task but doing so will improve the sustainability of stocks and help fishing communities prosper, writes Maria Damanaki
