[ad_1]
London – “Al-Quds Al-Arabi”:
The Financial Times has published a major op-ed expressing concern over President Donald Trump’s latest risky deal.
The newspaper said that Washington’s recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara does not bring peace but strengthens war. He added that the latest “peace” agreements reached by the Donald Trump administration, by its own standards, are the “strangest” agreements. In exchange for Morocco’s recognition of Israel and normalization of relations with it, the United States recognized Rabat’s claims in Western Sahara.
And in all the “serve me, serve” arrangements that bear all the signs of Trump’s leadership, an attempt to satisfy himself, love of doing business, whatever its long-term effects, and disregard for the damage it causes. your focus.
The agreement with Morocco announced on Thursday was the latest in a series with Arab countries that improved relations with Israel at the behest of the US government. All of them were based on the idea of barter and commercial contracts, since Sudan was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel.
The Trump administration approved a deal to sell the F-35 fighter jets in exchange for opening diplomatic relations with Israel. For its part, Morocco obtained Trump’s recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara, whose status has been in dispute since Spain, the former colonial power, withdrew from it in 1975. Today it is the subject of a dispute between Morocco and the government. that called itself the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic that cries out for the independence of the region.
The newspaper says tensions have risen in Western Sahara, and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front launches attacks on positions of the Moroccan army, whose forces guard a fortified sand wall for 2,700 kilometers. This came as a result of the incursion of Moroccan forces into the demilitarized zone to open a road blocked by protesters, linking Morocco and the Sahara countries.
The United Nations resolution issued in 1991, which defined the parameters of the ceasefire 30 years ago, stipulated that the future of the region is decided by referendum. Hence, the recognition by the United States of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara has shaken the international consensus, although the European Union has affirmed that it will continue to treat the region as disputed. But it can embolden the Moroccan government, accused of human rights violations in the region. The US decision also increases the risks of destabilizing a region suffering from wars in Libya and Mali and is considered a fertile area for militants to reproduce, according to the newspaper.
In this deal, long-term American interests were abandoned in favor of Trump’s ambition to present himself as a successful peacemaker and interlocutor. He did not deliver on his promised “deal of the century” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he is still trying to defeat his predecessor, Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize.
If the agreement is seen separately, it is not responsible. If the agreement with Morocco is seen as part of the efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would seem strange. Trump’s strategy is based on granting everything one side requests and removing all power cards from the other side, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, its sovereignty over the occupied Golan and a new normalization of relations with Arab countries.
All of this eased the pressure on Israel to negotiate a long-term solution with the Palestinians. The recent Trump agreement failed to support the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and may even start war. Without a referendum in Western Sahara, the Polisario will likely increase its attacks. The front may receive new support from its sponsors, such as Algeria, in a way that increases tension with Morocco. Instead of strengthening his credibility as a peacemaker in the final days of his administration, Trump is increasing the risks of instability.
