Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September-October 2002, pages 48-49

European Press Review

Morocco Has “Chosen the Path of Confrontation,” Says Spain’s El Mundo

By Lucy Jones

The arrival of a dozen Moroccan soldiers July 12 on a tiny island inhabited only by goats set off an international incident, with Spain claiming that Rabat had made a serious challenge to its sovereignty. The “invasion” of Isla de Perejil (Parsley Island), 200 yards from the Moroccan mainland, caused the president of the European Commission to warn the Moroccan prime minister that a protracted occupation would have “pernicious consequences” for his country’s relations with Europe. There were also sharp exchanges between the European Union and the Arab League.

According to Spain’s El País of July 15, a Moroccan spokesman called Spain’s reaction “totally disproportionate.” Morocco has long disputed the legitimacy of Spain’s remaining territories in North Africa: Ceuta and Melilla, two enclaves on the Moroccan mainland; and three island groups, including Perejil’s cluster, the Chafarinas. Explained Britain’s Independent on July 15, “Perejil formed part of the Spanish protectorate of northern Morocco, handed back to Rabat in 1956, except for Ceuta and Melilla. Spain considered Perejil part of Ceuta, but after objections from Rabat, did not mention the islet in the final document.”

Madrid concedes that its claim on Perejil is questionable—in official statements, the Spanish government has insisted simply that Morocco must abide by the “status quo”—but, as El País observed, “Doing nothing when there are Moroccan soldiers on Perejil has a price and could set a precedent. But so does doing something. This uninhabited islet, whose existence most Spaniards ignored until now, isn’t worth a single shot. The civilized thing would be…for both sides to allow the International Court at the Hague to settle this dispute.”

An editorial in Madrid’s El Mundo on July 15 concluded: “Perejil isn’t even worth the fuel for the patrol boats. But neither can we ignore the obvious symbolism of this hostile act. The king of Morocco has chosen the path of confrontation with one of the great European democracies and this should have a serious cost for him.”

Several papers speculated about the timing of the Perejil invasion. The July 15 Financial Times said it may have been “Morocco’s opening salvo in a campaign to recover the Spanish enclaves.” According to the FT, “Spain accuses Rabat of failing to stem illegal immigration. It suspects Moroccan police are involved in trafficking drugs and human beings.”

The latter accusations were said to have offended King Mohammed VI, who celebrated his wedding in July, but refused to invite any Spaniards. El Mundo suggested on July 15 that perhaps Mohammed “wanted to add the invasion of a lost island” to the list of wedding gifts he had received.

Spanish Eviction of Moroccan Troops Called “Act of Folly”

On July 17 Spain retook Parsley Island, sending elite troops, transported in attack helicopters and supported by five warships and two submarines, to disarm the half-dozen Moroccan gendarmes who had “occupied” the rock for six days. The move was praised by some European newspapers. Austria’s Der Standard said on July 18th, “whatever the motives behind the order to occupy the island of Perejil may have been, the occupation violated international law.”

In a commentary entitled “Island in Absurdistan,” Munich’s Sueddeutsche Zeitung argued on July 19 that Spain was right to act, although the paper wondered whether it was necessary to send what it called “half its Armada.” “The clearing up action was justified,” it declared, “but now there must be an end to the laughable squabble at this highly sensitive link between cultures, religions and continents.”

Austria’s Die Presse on the same day approved of Spain’s reaction to what it called a “provocation at Europe’s gates.” The paper said that Spain’s rapid response had prevented a bigger military build-up, which could have led to bloodshed. “The crisis has been contained for the time being,” it concluded, “but the message to Rabat is clear: good relations can only be the result of cooperation and talks but never the result of military action.”

The Financial Times of July 19, however, denounced the Spanish operation as “an act of folly,” since “Europe does not need a new source of strain with the Arab world.” France’s Liberation on the same day mocked Spain’s gunboat diplomacy, arguing that the islet was merely a pretext “for more serious underlying tensions,” since the Strait of Gibraltar marks “an explosive border separating the worlds of North and South, prosperity and misery.”

Even in the Spanish press, jingoism faded as the days passed. The left-wing El País published on July 19 a long treatise on the history of Spain’s North African territories and concluded that Perejil belongs to Morocco.

Attack on Gaza a “Premeditated Butchery of Innocents”

The UK’s Guardian said on July 25 that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “personal, primary culpability is plain” in an attack on Gaza which left 14 civilians dead and 160 wounded. Sharon declared the attack, which targeted and killed Salah Shehada, head of Hamas’s military wing, a “great success.” The prime minister’s office subsequently tried to shift the blame, saying army intelligence said there were no civilians in the area. “Such wriggling is contemptible,” said the Guardian. “Mr Sharon went too far in Gaza…just as he did with his repellent demolition of lives and homes in Jenin camp last April, just as he did in Beirut back in 1982. In ordering an air strike on a block of flats in a crowded residential area, Israel’s unworthy leader acted recklessly and with an irresponsible, callous disregard for the consequences. This, too, was a premeditated butchery of innocents,” the editorial concluded.

London’s Daily Telegraph said the following day that Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations of “terrorist godfathers is right and proportionate,” but went on to say that “the whole point is to avoid the killing of innocent civilians, and Israel certainly has the technical capabilities and ingenuity to achieve such outcomes.

“Once again,” the editorial concluded, “it proves that the most startling aspect of the modern Israeli mindset is the bizarre mixture of technical competence and political muppetry.”

Bush Said to Be “Preparing Military Strikes” on Iraq

The U.S. and Europe desperately need to talk about stabilizing Afghanistan and the Middle East, said the Berliner Zeitung on July 23. “The Bush administration seems maniacally fixated on preparing military strikes against Iraq,” the paper opined, “which the Europeans reject because of their interests in the Middle East.”

Vienna’s Die Presse of July 23 saw the Iraq campaign as a personal crusade by President George W Bush “to wipe out the shameful family blot of Bush Senior leaving Saddam unscathed after the Gulf War.” Concluded the newspaper: “It’s all the more remarkable that the European allies are standing idly by, watching the preparations for war.”

The “self-defeating ineptitude of George Bush’s strategies may well push Iran and Iraq into a dangerous alliance of expediency,” wrote columnist Simon Tisdall in London’s July 25 Guardian. “In its fierce hostility to Israel, Iraq finds an enthusiastic partner in the Shi’ite clerical establishment that controls Iran.

“If George Bush is serious about removing Saddam,” Tisdall continued, “Washington might have been expected to be doing all it can to undermine any fence-mending between Iran and Iraq… Strange to say, Bush [is] doing the exact opposite.

“The president loses no opportunity to alienate and enrage Iran. Last January, he named Iran as a member of the ‘axis of evil,’ deliberately lumping it together with Iraq. He has renewed U.S. sanctions on Iran, refused to pursue a resumption of diplomatic relations… How delightful all this must be for Saddam Hussain! What music to the ears of his wretched regime!” he concluded.

Deepening Turkish Crisis Worries European Papers

Germany’s Berliner Zeitung of July 12 warned against ignoring the political crisis in Turkey, pointing out that “the big neighbor with almost 70 million people is politically and strategically far too important for Europe.”

Turkey’s paralysis deepened on July 11 with the departure of the foreign minister and the attempted resignation of the finance minister, who later was persuaded to remain in his post. Seven ministers and more than 40 MPs had left the ruling Democratic Left Party (DSP) in an attempt to persuade 77-year-old Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit to resign. Ecevit’s refusal to step down or to agree to an early election, despite a serious illness that has kept him virtually confined to his home since May, left the government deadlocked and unable to resolve the country’s problems.

These include the likelihood that Washington will require Ankara’s support for a potentially unpopular military action against neighboring Iraq, and delicate relations with the European Union, with Turkey needing to scrap its death penalty and improve human rights for its Kurdish population before the EU bureaucrats will start membership talks.

“With Turkey, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of indifference,” the German paper continued, even though “there is little desire in the EU countries to admit Turkey”.

Switzerland’s Le Temps on July 12 called the previous day’s developments the “fatal blow” for Ecevit, since he was the focus of “all the resentments of those who denounce the absence of democratic reforms, the slowness of European progress, and especially the calamitous management of the most serious recession in 50 years.…[Ecevit] doesn’t seem to have any alternative but to call an early election,” it concluded

Three high-profile DSP defectors made moves to create a new pro-European party, which Britain’s Financial Times of July 12 said “stands a good chance of coming to power if it can enlist more political heavyweights and explain clearly what it offers for the man on the street.”

In an opinion piece headlined “Turkey Adrift,” France’s Le Figaro suggested the same day that Ecevit was resisting calling an election because he feared it would open the way for the Islamist parties. “Facing a crisis that endangers one of the rare secular Muslim states, Europe cannot remain indifferent,” the paper agreed.

Russia’s daily Izvestiya observed July 12 that nobody needs the present situation—“especially not the USA, which is about to start a war with Iraq.”

Stability of Afghan Government “in Question”

The July 6 murder of Afghan Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir led the European press to panic and despair. Britain’s Financial Times of July 8 said the incident “has thrown the stability of President Hamid Karzai’s government into question and shattered…[any] optimism that had built up.”

As Britain’s Observer had pointed out the previous day, Qadir was one of the few members of Afghanistan’s majority Pashtun tribe to exercise influence with the predominantly Tajik Northern Alliance. Consequently, the paper said, he “played an important role maintaining good relations between Afghanistan’s fractious minorities.” Qadir’s murder, in the paper’s opinion, “will embarrass the international peacekeeping force, now led by Turkey. The security of ministers and government facilities was among the primary missions of the force.”

The Paris newspaper Liberation said on July 8 that Qadir had numerous enemies “jealous of his status as the strongman of Nangahar province, his political influence, and his success in business.”

Several papers suggested that, as the London Times’ July 8 obituary put it, “His wealth came from controlling the drugs supply chain” in Nangahar—the second-largest opium-producing area in the country.

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.