Talk:Amgala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Africa Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara. See also The Western Sahara Portal.

Assessment comments

[edit] response to Koavf

"Free Zone" is a term that arose after the ceasfire in 1991, and used by Polsario to denote the region not under Moroccan control. In the terminology of the UN, "east of the Wall" is used. The two belligerant parties according to all UN security council reports are the kingdom of Morocco and The Polisario front. The SADR is not recognized by the UN.

- Amgala battle happened in 1976, when there was no wall, so talking about "Polisario troops in the free zone" in 1976 is wrong.

- Amgala war was strictly between Morocco and Algeria. All the surviving Algerian soldiers involved were made prisoners. No Polisario troops were involved.

- The location of Amgala, more than 300 Km from the Algerian border, and the size of the Agerian troops and their weaponery refute the allegation that it was for a "humanitary" mission. --SteveLo 07:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Free Zone and POV

You put a POV banner on this article. From which point-of-view is it being written?
The terms "liberated territories" and "Free Zone" are used in 1980's literature in English. There is no necessity to use UN terminology, but even if we did, there is certainly no reason to delete the link to the relevant article. Why was it deleted? If we're discussing the armed conflict, it's appropriate to frame it in terms of (the army of) Morocco versus the Polisario; if we're discussing conflicting claims by rival governments over territory, it is appropriate to discuss the Kingdom of Morocco versus the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, since they are both governments.
True, but the article doesn't say that the fighting occured after the wall was built.
This is simply fantastic - you've got to provide some evidence that this is the case. It seems very unlikely that there were no Polisario troops involved in fighting in the Sahara, especially so close to the camps. How can one even establish that no Polisario troops were there? That would only be possible if you knew who every troop was, and that none of them were Polisario.
I don't see how this is relevant; my edit of the article doesn't say anything about humanitarianism. I also don't see how the distance or troop size have anything to do with humanitarianism. How many troops could they have had and how close to the border could they have been for a humanitiarian mission?
Here are the entries on Amgala from two sources spelling errors and emphasis mine:

Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War by Tony Hodges, p.232 - "One of the staging points on the exodus route to Algeria was Amgala, a water-point on Saguia el-Hamra about 180 miles from the Algerian frontier. Several hundred Algerian troops were there, helping Polisario to bring food and medicines to the refugees and ferry them out to Algeria, when, on January 29, a Moroccan force attacked and seized the locality, killing dozens of Algerian soldiers and capturing another ninety-nine.[citation: Reuters, dispatch from Algeirs, January 20, 1976, Maghreb Arabe Presse (Rabat), January 30, 1976] The incident could easily have sparked off an all-out war between Morocco and Algeria, but President Boumedienne decided to withdraw all Algerian troops from Western Sahara at once. Thereafter, Algeria played no direct part in the war and limited its military support for Polisario to the provision of arms, bases and training. However, no February 14, less than three weeks after the Moroccan capture of Amgala, Polisario guerillas massacred a large number of the three hundred Moroccan soldiers billeted there, and Hassan immediately laid the blame on Algeria. On February 15 he wrote to Boumedienne, accusing the Algerian army of 'causing dozens of victims among my sons and the combatants of my contry.'[citation: Reuters, dispatch from Rabat, February 15, 1976] These charges were immediately denied in Algiers. 'There is no unit of the National People's Army on Western Saharan territory,' Boumedienne's government declared on February 16. 'International observers can verify this on the spot. On January 29, when battalions of the Moroccan army staged a treacherous attack on the units that had the task of taking provisions of food and medicines to the Saharan refugees in Amgala, Algeria resolved not to yield to provocation and to avoid a comprehensive connotation between the two sister peoples.'"[citation: Radio Algiers, Febru7ary 16, 1976]

Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara by Anthony G. Pazzanita and Tony Hodges, pp.43-44 - "A water source in the east of Saguia el-Hamra, about 180 miles from teh Algerian frontier, Amgala was on of the most importatnt battle sites in teh early stages of the war between Morocco and the Polisario Front. It had been under the effective control of the Polisario Front since October 1975, when the Spanish army withdrew from all points west of ASmara, and it later became a key stagning point in the front's evactuaion of Sharawi civiliians to refgee camps in Algeira. Regular troops of the Algerian National People's Army were in Amgala, assisting with the refugee exodus, when the Moroccan army attacked in the last week of January 1976. On January 29, Moroccan troops under the command of Col. Ben Othman, seized the locality, capturing 99 Algerian solider s and killing dozens more. The incident might have sparked off an all-out war between Morocco and Algeria, but Algerian troops were then withdrawn from Western Sahara and di not play a direct part in the Polisario struggle thereafter limiting their role to the provision of bases, arms, and training for the guerrillas. However, less than three weeks after the Moroccan capture of Amgala, Poilsario guerrillas massacred a large part of the 300-strong garrison left there by Col. Ben Othman. A day later, on February 15, King Hassan II wrote bitterly to President Houari Boumedienne of Algeria, accusing the Algerian army of 'causing dozens of victims among my sons and the combatants of my county.' The Algerian Council of the Revolution and cabinet, meeting jointly on February 15, replied categorically: 'There is no unit of the National People's Army on Western Saharan territory. International observers can verify this on the spot. On January 29, when battalions of the Moroccan army staged a treacherous attack on the units that had the task of taking provisions of food and medicines to the Saharan refugees in Amgala, Algeria resolved not to yield to provocation and to avoid a comprehensive connotation between the two sister peoples.' Moroccan forces reoccupied Amgala in May 1877 and stayed there, at times harassed by the guerrillas, until 1979, when as part of the retrenchment policy the Moroccan forces pulled out of all their bases east of Smara. The area remained under Polsiario control until mid-1985, when an extension of Morocco's 'defensive walls' encompassed it." -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

=====> POV was added from both point-of-views, depending on which version (mine or yours)is the latest.

"Liberated territories" and "Free Zone" are terms that apply after hostilities end, and there is a stable situation on the ground. This does not apply to January 1976 when the hostilities had not even started. The Moroccan troops by January 1976 had not even been to Bir Lahlu, or Tifariti or Guleta Zemmour. The Moroccans by that time were taking over from the spanish troops their stations, without any confrontations. The Polisario was busy trying to dissolve the Djemaa assembly after its leader Joumani declared he is reintegrating Morocco, and by moving people to Algeria. There was no place that could be called free or liberated zone. After the cease-fire of 1991, the term was used, but I don't see it appropriate in the context of amgala war. That is why it was removed. The UN terminology is important because it represents the international concensus regardless of what Morocco thinks (artificial conflict with Algeria as the other part opposing Moroccan territorial integrity), or what Polisario/Algeria think ( There a state called the SADR though seated in Tindouf, Algeria, it controls every uncontrolled square meter ( i.e Not controlled by Morocco) ). Moreover, those who doubt the legitimacy of the UN are not usually on the right side.
Amgala war happened in January 1976, before the SADR was proclaimed in 28 February 1976. So, I think the SADR word is not contemporary to the events of Amgala.
Again, The units of the Algerian Army were in Amgala and in others localities. The Algerian units when were attacked, and made prisonners, there was no Polisario prisoners among them. I don't understand why you insist on it being between Polisario and Morocco. Egyptian then Vice-president Husni Mubarak and Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia interceeded for the release of the Algerian prisoners and not the Polisarians.
Again Justin, for decades there was a declared state called the state of Palestine, recognized by more than 110 countries and having ambassies in four continents and was a member of the Arab League, the Organizaton of Islamic Conference (regroupimg more than 57 countries), the non-alligned movment, etc. But the UN was dealing with the PLO not this state. Another example is the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. So, it is not eough that you declare yourself an independent state, to be considered as such in the eyes of the international community, even though some would recognize you.
which camps you mean? the camps near Tindouf are over 200 miles away from Amgala. If you mean some camps in Amgala, there is no record of such camps, and no civilians were in the vicinity of the fighting. On the contrary, this strengthens the case that Polisario troops must have been escorting the civilian population while the Algerian Army units were mounting guard far away from the supposed camps => they were not together involved in the fighting in Amgala.
Look, when you send doctors and medicines and food to a sinistred population, that is humanitarian aid. When you send thousands of troops with SAM missiles and rocket launchers, and tanks, and heavy artillery somewhere, that is anything but humanitarianism. The distance is there because the more deeper inside a territory a country gets, the more seriously its role should be looked at.
As to Tony Hodges, I made a google search on him, and found a review of his book here http://www.middleeastbooks.com/html/books/hodges.html . it is stated openly that "he is clearly sympathetic to the Saharawi cause and largely approves of Sahrawi political development". I am not to be blamed if I say that in this case, I don't accept his testimony as impartial. It is interestingly striking how the Algerian new agency is quoted all along
"On february king Hassan II wrote to boumedienne ...". I would like to be directed to a site or some source where such letter is published. Because as far as I know, King Hassan and president Boumedienne were communicating through speeches and press conferences and mediators, and hostility was such that even diplomatic relations soon broke.
" Moroccan army staged a treacherous attack " and much more citations from Algiers Radio. What about the other side of the story? where are the Rabat Radio citatons?. Though I really appreciate the effort and time you took to make the excerpts available, I see much of it just repetitions from the same source: Mr Hodges. --SteveLo 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV Admitting that you're adding POV to articles is probably not wise when you're trying to reach a mediated solution.

The terms "Liberated territories" and "Free Zone" were created during hostilities to denote the regions under Polisario administration. That having been said, the article does not say that there was a Free Zone in 1976 and it never used that phrase in any edit. What it says is that Amgala exists today in "the Polisario-held part of Western Sahara." The Polisario held-part of Western Sahara is the Free Zone. Why would you delete a link to it? UN terminology is certainly useful and meaningful, but appealing to it to distort facts or change the representation of them in an article is not a legitimate reason. The UN may say X, and that's fine but the AU may say Y, and the Arab League Z. They are all political actors with political agendas that may not represent the truth. I don't know what this is supposed to mean or how it applies to anything at all "[T]hose who doubt the legitimacy of the UN are not usually on the right side."
Again, the SADR reference is to what is occuring now. The Polisario took Amgala in February 1976. The SADR administers Amgala today.
Just because there were no Polisario POW's, that isn't proof that there were no Polisario soldiers. As I pointed out, one source explicitly states that Polisario were in Amgala. There is still no evidence that they weren't and you're still trying to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible. Of course other heads of state interceeded for the release of the POW's'; how could Polisario have mediated the negotiations for release? That's inconceivable.
Why should the UN be the barometer of what we choose as legitimate? You haven't provided any defense of this. There are inherent differences and similarities between the SADR and PNA, and at times it is appropriate to use the same langauage when refering to them. I agree that "it is not eough that you declare yourself an independent state, to be considered as such in the eyes of the international community, even though some would recognize you," but what is enough? How many states need to recognize you? What if you have a functioning economy, permanent population, and administered territory, but are only recognized by two dozen states, such as the Republic of China?
The refugee camps in Algeria; that what the source explicitly states. This doesn't necessitate that Algerian Army units were mounting far guard while Polisario were moving civilians? Why couldn't it have been the other way around? Why couldn't it have been collaborative? Maybe they switched off days.
Algeria did send doctors, medicines, and food to an oppressed population. They sent them via the military. You and I could speculate out of ignorance or bias why the military was sent as opposed to third-party humanitarian aid workers, but all we know is that is what occured, not why.
You don't have to accept his testimony as impartial. Sources don't need to be NPOV, they just need to be credible and verifiable. If you have some reason to doubt the sourced facts in Hodges, provide it. I also have no idea why I should trust middleeastbooks.com more than Tony Hodges. He has written the premier books in English on the Sahara. I don't know what you think Reuters is, but it's an international, non-partisan news agency. Radio Algiers was quoted once; how is this "the Algerian new agency [q]uoted all along?" What are you talking about?
I did direct you to a source, and that source directed you to his source. Not everything in print is on the Internet.
There is only one citation from Radio Algiers. The other side of the story is presented when Hassan writes propaganda like "causing dozens of victims among my sons and the combatants of my contry." Hodges is used as the source because he is the most reliable and scholarly source on the topic in English. If you know of a better one, I'd certainly like to hear it. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)