The story of a (possible) betrayal. Chirac, Mohamed and Zapatero together against Spain?

In 2001 Spain was becoming stronger in the Gibraltar Strait scenario, Spain did not let dictator Mohamed Sixth play with Spain the usual menace game of "you do this or things will happen..."; our country had its own foreign policy and was defending its strategical interests.

Traditionally France and Morocco have shared a common interest in keeping Spain relatively weak. France has always had a big interest in keeping some control in the area of the Strait of Gibraltar through its Moroccan ally and the allience Mr. José María Aznar had established with the US and Britain was a matter of concern in Paris.

France had important oil businesses going on with Sadam Hussein at the time of the US British military intervention in Irak, and french authorities did all they could to refrain other countries from intervening.

Mr. Zapatero paid a visit to tyrant king Mohamed Sixth in December 2001 at the time when the Moroccan ambassador to Madrid had been withdrawn and Morocco was using its traditional methods of putting pressure: allowing illegal immigrants cross the border to Spain and letting the drug flow into Europe (if you wonder if the Moroccan king has some share in these two "businesses" just remeber that nothing goes on there without some kind of royal consent).

Since one of Zapatero´s main points was what he called to return to the "heart of Europe" (meaning France and Germany) instead of building the transatlantic bond with the US, Zapatero was an easy prey for the Moroccan dictator who knew he could use this power thirsty maniac to his benefit. Mohammed promised Zapatero his support if Zapatero gave him in exchange the guarantees of changing the Spanish foreign policy once he was in office. France of course was more than happy if Mohammed could help them get rid of the audacious José María Aznar.

-

And there he was sitting by Mohammed in a room presided by a map of Morocco that included non Moroccan territories like Ceuta, Melilla, the Canary Islands or the Western Sahara.

Morocco was very concerned about the facts that Spain was supporting the implementation of the UN resolution on conducting a referendum of self-determination in Western Sahara (something Morocco totally opposes) and was building a good relation with Morocco traditional foe: Algeria.

All these things infuriated the Sultan and his French ally. Some months later Morocco put to test the Spanish government determination by invading a small Spanish island (Perejil). Moroccan authorities wanted to see if Spain was going to back up in its will to mantain a strong position and defending the Spanish strategical interest and the answer came in July 2002 when this island was liberated.

-

The day after this bloodless Spanish intervention King Mohammed VI sent her sister, Princess Lalla Mariam, to Paris with an urgent message for Jacques Chirac. Mohamed VI urged Chirac to act together to rein Spain in. The response from Paris to Mohamed VI was this: "It's now or never when we must act to oppose the Spanish penetration in Morocco." (source Ignacio Cembrero, journalist in "El País" newspaper)

-

It must also be said that during the Perejil island crisis France never showed its support to Spain even though these two countries are allies within the European Union and the NATO, which is very revealing.

-

France and Morocco knew then that Aznar was not going to change his policy and they also knew that Zapatero was going to "return" to the "heart of Europe" (whatever the hell that is) and also to let Mohammed do and undo at his royal will in the Western Sahara. Also, and very important, Zapatero must have promised in those days to give a lower profile to the Spanish-Algerian relations and the facts are that Algeria is really pissed with Zapatero after the Spanish government paid a ramson to the same terrorist that Algeria is continuously fighting. Of course now Algeria is threatening to increase gas prices to Spain.

-

Then in March 11th 2004, 3 days before the General Elections in Spain the attack took place and Zapatero achieved an unexpected victory. Those who planned the attacks new very well what the reaction would be among Spanish voters. The attack was performed to make Zapatero become President in Spain. Almost all the attackers were Moroccans and the first thing they asked after being able to speak to their lawyers was : "who has won the elections?"

-

Al Qaeda knows very little aout the complexities of Spanish idiosyncrasy and they would never have come up with such a sociological attack. This attack was perpetrated in the precise date and in the precise manner so as to change the will of the voters and achieve its goals.

-

The interesting part is that these goals were pretty much consistent with the interests of both Moocco and France. Striking, isn´t it?

-

Pd. Morocco is beating, raping, sacking and torturing the Western Sahara population these days but do not look for a note of protest from the Spanish government...you will not find that...Striking isn´t it?

Tweet

A mosque in NYC ground zero? Yes, but right after a cathedral is built in Mecca

Building or not a mosque in NYC ground zero it is an issue in the USA, but building a church near Kaaba in Mecca (Saudi Arabia) is far from being an issue, it is simply fiction!

.

Imagine a country that wants to sell its good and services in the USA and in return they ban the imports of American products. Good business? Yes indeed, but not for the US!

.

Now imagine that country arguing that the US is a free market and that everyone has the right to sell anything there under American laws. Sounds a bit hypocritical, doesnt it?

All muslims in Europe and in the Americas want to benefit from the freedom of cult and do take advantage of the fact that proselytism is allowed and defended in the Western world. Despite my opinion about Islam after having read the Koran a couple of times and after discussing with some muslim acquaintances about the fact that, among other things, according to the Koran saying that Jesus is God must be consider blasphemous and puts me in the black list together with the worst infidels and idolaters, building a mosque in NYC should be something relatively normal.

.

I said "should be realatively normal" in a world were the reciproty principle applies. But according to Islam reciprocity is a word that it only applies to the punishment that must be applied to those leaving Islam (death) or to women that missbehave or to infidels that preach other religions.

.

In the vast majority of muslim countries proselytism of any religion other than Islam is forbidden and actively prosecuted. Let us bring some examples of what goes on aout there:

From the web http://www.boiseweekly.com/

Solana Pyne, GlobalPost

RABAT, Morocco — For 10 years, foreign Christians ran an orphanage called Village of Hope on the slopes of Morocco’s Middle Atlas Mountains, taking in abandoned Moroccan children and raising them in their homes.

But it took just a few hours Monday evening for Moroccan authorities to dissolve those foster families. Police gathered the 16 foreign volunteers and their biological children in a conference room and told them they had to leave the country immediately. Across the parking lot, 33 Moroccan children learned they would stay behind.

“It will be burned in my memory forever,” said Chris Broadbent, a New Zealander who worked as an administrator at the orphanage. “These kids just screamed across the car park to their parents to ask them if it was true. It was just chaos and so distressing, so terrible. I’ve never seen or experienced anything like it.”

Broadbent said Moroccan authorities took over the Village of Hope facility on Monday, but it is not yet clear whether the children will stay there or be sent somewhere else.

Morocco’s Interior Ministry claims the group “exploited some families' poverty and targeted their minor children,” violating rules on guardianship and breaking Morocco’s laws against proselytizing to Muslims.

Foreign Christian leaders in Morocco say the deportations are part of a country-wide campaign that signals a tough new stance against foreign evangelists who had been tolerated here for years.

Broadbent said the staff never tried to convert anyone, and maintained the orphanage had followed the same policies since it opened a decade ago: The children learned the Quran in school, but were raised by Christian parents.

“We were we looking after them, because nobody else would,” Broadbent said. “For 10 years they have openly, knowingly allowed us to do that and they never said we were breaking the law.”

They are not the only foreign evangelists to suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the Moroccan government. A western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said authorities placed several dozen or more on a list for deportation.

In addition to orphanage volunteers approximately 10 other foreign Christians accused of proselytizing were deported over the weekend from cities across the country, pastors and Christian aid groups said.

Those expelled come from the Netherlands, Britain, the Congo, New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil and the United States.

“We were disheartened and distressed to learn of the recent expulsion by the Moroccan Government of a number of foreigners, including numerous Americans, who had been legally residing in Morocco,” U.S. Ambassador Samuel Kaplan said in a statement. “While we expect all American citizens in Morocco to respect Moroccan law, we hope to see meaningful improvements in the application of due process in such cases.”

U.S. embassy officials declined to confirm who or how many people would be expelled but said the number is likely to rise. Pastors who have lived in Morocco for years say the sheer quantity of deportations is unprecedented in recent years.

“It’s like going to sleep and waking up and all of the sudden you’re in a different country,” said Jack Wald, who has spent 10 years as pastor of Rabat International Church, a protestant congregation in the capital. “This is a change in policy from the top of the government.”

“In my nine years in Morocco, never,” said Pastor Jean-Luc Blanc, authorized by the government to preach to foreigners at the Evangelical Church of Morocco. “Each year there are one or two expulsions like this, but never so many at one time.”

But Moroccan Communication Minister Khalid Naciri maintains that the expulsions are neither new, nor limited to Christian missionaries.

“The Moroccan government today deals harshly with whoever allows themselves to manipulate the religion of the people,” Naciri said. He cited government crackdowns on radical Islamist groups and expulsions of Shi’a Muslims proselytizing in this largely Sunni country.

Still, many in the expatriate Christian community here are wondering who’s next. Police have interviewed children at another older orphanage, also run by Christian evangelists, a few miles from The Village of Hope.

“They asked 'Do you know the Quran?' and they quoted the Quran to them,” said Jim Pitts, a native Virginian, has worked at the orphanage for 51 years.

Pitts says his staff members have come only to do charitable work and have never tried to convert anyone. But he’s still unsure what the authorities will do.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen with us,” he said. “We’ll see.”

This happens in Morocco a country that pretends to have an image of tolerance and appear as a moderate muslim country...I am a bit sick of those people that still believe, need or want to believe I gess, that there are such things as moderate and radical Islam.

There are muslims who follow Islam and there are others who don´ follow it, period.

Proselytizing is banned in all muslim countries, but proselytizing is a must for muslims according to Koran so as they understand it since Islam is the right choice preaching other religions must be forbidden. So in the minds of Mohamed followers it makes sense to "protect" muslims from the infidels and their "evil" teaching while they carry on spreading their "good news".

Interesting how a Moroccan man that has spent 50 years in the US sees the expelling of US missionaries:

Considering the boiling religious conflicts and how Moderate Islam has been put on the defensive by fatalistic and hateful extremists from the three Abrahamic faiths, Morocco’s action to remove the evangelists is appropriate. Sadly to say, while this action is entirely justifiable from a national security standpoint, it has prompted numerous negative reactions. The call for due process should not serve as an excuse to overlook the dangerous situation the evangelists put themselves in. On balance, the due process interests of the evangelists does not outweigh concerns for their personal safety and the national security interests of Morocco, indeed the global security interests of us all. Few would gain by Morocco’s failure to protect Christians against extremists, thereby ruining Morocco’s foundation as land of religious understanding and tolerance.

And he goes on further down saying:

The subject matter of a trial would have been whether the evangelists were proselytizing in contravention of Moroccan law. The parade of witnesses testifying in such a trial would serve only to enflame the already heated emotions of religious extremists at a time that calls for cool heads, not more fuel. Moreover, fueling religious confrontation is a likely outcome of such a trial. The very creed of evangelical Christianity is proselytizing, or converting others to their faith. The distorted views of Islam on the part of the evangelical leader Reverend Franklin Graham that have recently come to light are not an aberration, but rather reflect evangelical beliefs.

As a Moroccan and Moderate Moslem, I personally do not want to see the diplomatic and security cooperation attained between Morocco, the United States, and the countries in Europe and elsewhere from which the evangelists came to be damaged by a hasty reaction calling for due process while the evangelists are safe in their home countries. Nor do I want to see Morocco, my beloved country, suffer negative consequences, particularly when it has practiced religious tolerance long before such tolerance was popular.

The Moroccan authorities should be supported for their swift action as well as congratulated for their relentless, continuing protection of the tens of thousands of non-Moslems, Christians and Jews, living in Morocco, observing their faiths, and respecting Moroccan laws.

Mr. Motapha Chtaini spent almost 50 years living in the US with frequent return trips to Morocco. He taught Urban Studies and City Planning at the University level for 20 years and served as Washington Bureau Chief of the Moroccan News Agency ( Maghreb Arabe Presse) for 20 years.

What Mr Motapha is transmitting here is:

-He is a moderate moslem.

-Expelling evangelist from Morocco is a good decision

-These evangelist will be better in their home countries because they were at risk.

-Morocco is a tolerant regime towards Christians and Jews

-He reckons that Moroccan laws forbid proselytizing

Yeah!

Such a lovely person this Mr. Motapha! He knows what is best for these American citizens and for those children they were looking after! But of course Moroco is such a tolerant country as long as you dont dare to give any moslim a Bible. He should have added that these things would have never happened if these folks would have not gotten in trouble being missionaries.

I am sure Mr Motapha, like many other "moderate" muslims supports the building of the mosque in NYC ground zero regardless of what most Americans may think of it, all for the sake of tolerance and good will!

I am a bit fed up, honestly, when "moderate" muslims defend things such as:

a.- A muslim male can marry a non muslim female, whereas a non muslim male cannot marry a muslim woman. They argue that since men are stronger and somehow have a larger capacity to influence (those "poor helpless" females) than women it is fine that a muslim man marry a christian woman because she will never be able to change her husband´s faith nor the faith that their children (compulsory) have: Islam.

b.- The penalty for the conversion of a muslim person into another faith is simple: Death. No problem for those who convert to Islam, all are welcome. Now imagine that the Pope would say that death is what christians will face if they become muslims; all muslims would critizice him for that.

Let´s not allow these hypocrites fool us with their boring speech:

"Hey you infidels, watch out because if you do not help us moderate muslims the bad bad guys will take us over and you will be in trouble. Help us Western world, but dont expect reciprocity by any means!"

.

Mr. Barack Mohamend Obama, please ask the Muslim world for respect, for TRUE respect, ask for reciprocity, true reciprocity and do not support the building of any mosque until churches, pagodas, sinagogues etc can be built in muslim countries. Show strength, the same strength we, unfortunately will never see in our down on her knees before Islam President Zapatero.

Meanwhile, please zero mosques in ground zero!

Tweet

Morocco, Spain´s friendly foe and what does Zapatero owe Mohamed.

It is really amazing to hear each and every important Spanish politician that good relations with Morocco are a must. It is even more shocking to hear Socialist politicians saying that we, Spain, have always great relations with the Kingdom of Morocco.

Good relations with Morocco is something desirable but it is far from being a must, and when someoene dares to say that we have such lovely relations with Moroccan autorities is maybe forgetting that we have had a war incident 7 years ago when kicking Moroccan soldiers off a small Spanish sovereignty island (Perejil), and forgetting as well that we have had no Moroccan ambassador for the last 8 months!

Most of Morocco´s strategic objectives include the need to weaken Spain. A strong Spain controlling from both sides the strait of Gibraltar (mainland Spain and Ceuta /Melilla) and developing a proactive foreign policy in Northern Africa is King-Dictator´s Mohamed VI worst nightmare.

Moroccan services know that a socialist led cabinet is always weaker. Socialist are more reluctant to show teeth, they also carry this unique Spanish guilt complex that consist in a "please forgive us" attitude towards any one who calls us racists or simply anyone saying they are "moderate" muslims.

Morocco knows that over a million of their citizens living in Spain and some even serving in our armed forces are a very important asset in their strategic game, but it is not the most important asset.

Every intelligence service knows that updated, relevant and dirty information about your rival is precious. In the intelligence arena Morocco has probably as much relevant information as Spain does but Morocco has a huge advantage: Morocco is not a democracy.

There is nothing such as free press, free television or freedom of opinion, the King and his people can do and undo at their own discretion and they can shut a radio station, censor newspapers and arrest journalist and no one will dare to protest. The Moroccan authorities have almost nothing to fear about their public opinion having access to confidential information leaked from Spanish secret services.

On the contrary Spanish authorities, from King Juan Carlos down to the last government official, have much more to fear about the use that Moroccan secret services do of the delicate information they manage.

The fact that it is very likely, in my case I am certain, that Morocco manages really compromising and delicate information about Madrid terrorsit attack in March 11th 2004 is a terrible threat to Spanish socialist government.

The possibility that Morocco´s services leak evidences that could lead to prove that some pro-socialist individuals operating in the "sewing system" of the Ministry of the Interior during the José María Aznar´s administration knew more about the terrorist attack is a devastating scenario for Spanish socialist government now.

If Morocco leaks information proving that pro-socialist elements were acting on their own during the conservative administration of Aznar and that these elements plotted so as to change the colour of the government in 2004, Zapatero would have to resign.

The sole idea of a joint venture between low profile Moroccan drug dealer criminals, that "happened" to be also police informers, and "freelance" pro socialist elements from the Spanish security services to change a government by the use of terror seems a crazy thing if we are not in the context of what happened in Spain in March 2004:

1.- Hundreds of tons of debris and unclaimed personal belongings from passengers on board the trains (evidences) vanished. This is something completely out of the police procedures about crime scene investigation and evidence protection. Even in plain or train accidents the wreckages are kept for months to be studied.

2.- The little evidence that was left was not analyzed by the Forensic Police Lab as it is regularly done. In this case they were analyzed by the deactivation squad lab, which is a lab meant for on site first analysis not for proper in depth studies.

3.- This terrorist attack that took place 3 days prior to the general elections was "solved" in less than two days, exactly the time needed for the socialist party to siege the Popular Party offices accross the country.

4.- A new analysis carried by 6 experts (from Police, Guardia Civil and 2 independent) proved that the explosive that blasted in March 11th 2004 was not Goma2-ECO nor Goma 2-EC as it was "proved" shortly after the attack.

There are many more odd and unexplained things surrounding this black chapter in recent Spanish History, I simply wanted to bring some of these obscure facts so as to put you in context.

No doubt this is a very delicate issue, and since it remains dark and, to all common sense standards, unsolved any secret service that manages relevant information about it can twist Zapatero´s wrist and put him on his knees, and chances are that Moroccan services have relevant and very "dirty" intelligence concerning this "terrorist" attack.

The socialist government has very little time left being in office, therefore Morocco must act fast to add more concessions from Spain before softy Zapatero disappears from the politic scenario.

The demonstrations in Melilla´s border to complain against the frontier police, with the Moroccan police letting then act, is just another excuse to put pressure on Zapatero.

Of course Morocco´s services know that the information they have about March 11th 2004 can be dangerous for Moroccan interests too but they also know well that what for them would be dangerous for the Spanish government would be simply devastating and that is how the game goes: Morocco pushing as they bear their March 11th "gun" and Spain slowly retreating trying to calm them.

For Moroccan services this is the kind of information that can "burn" your hands and "kill" your adversary. You don´t want to get burnt but you can run that risk whereas your adversary can´t afford to "be killed".

And what does Morocco expect from Spain for being such a friendly foe? They want several things, money included, but on top of the list we find:

1.- A pro Moroccan position with regard to Western Sahara. Spain was the colonisal metropoly in 1975 when the "Green March" from Morocco occupied Western Sahara. Franco was in his dying bed and king Juan Carlos (still prince in those days) flew there fast to tell everyone we had to pack our stuff and leave the Saharaui people to the hands of blody Hassan II. For 35 years Morocco has occupied an invaded territory that claims to be part of itself and for those same years Saharaui people have fought them with the support of Algeria who in 1975 wanted an Atlantic gate and is Morocco´s number one adversary in Northern Africa. If Spain shifts from a moderate neutral position (a coward position to my understanding) to a more pro-Moroccan one that would mean a big moral victory for them and a big punch on Spanish speaking Western Sahara freedom fighters.

2.- A less intense relation with Algeria. Self-explanatory.

3.- More concessions in terms of European Union-Morocco relations. That translates into less restrictions for Morocco to export fruit and vegetables which of course, although many Spanish companies own these Moroccan export businesses, has an impact on Spanish products distribution accross the rest of Europe. Also means to grant Morocco with best in class agreements with the EU in all the fields of commerce and investment.

4.- To occupy the two Spanish cities in Northern Africa: Ceuta and Melilla. This is a long term objective that from a Moroccan perspective cannot be achived until they count with enough military strength and the approval of the USA or whatever regional or global power that may exist by the time they believe this goal must be achived. The Perejil island incident proved that the USA backed Spain while France was more pro-Moroccan and also proved that Aznar was up to no jokes when the commandos jumped from the helicopters. Another recurrent threat that Morocco uses is that a more radical Islamic regime would be a threat to these two Spanish cities and for that reason Spain must support Mohamed´s tyranny.

During the last 40 years our policy towards Morocco can be described using the sentence that Frank Delano Roosvelt once said referring to Somoza:

"He may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch"

In the game theory applied to foreign strategic relations when you play hawk against someone who plays dove usually you will get good results while the other part chooses to go on playing in dove "mode". This is the case here; Zapatero thinks that we owe Morocco something and he is playing the appeasement role, same as he does with any dictator of this planet, thinking he does that for the sake of some stupid concept named "Civilization Allience".

What is civilization dude? To put down women and mistreat them is civilization Zapatero? To prosecute gays? To chop the hands off thieves? To forbit the preaching of another religion?

What can Spain do to revert this situation? Easy; change into hawk "mode":

1.- Support Bereber factions in Northern Morocco. Create a network of radio and television broadcasting stations in Berber (something that is forbidden in Morocco) and weaken the King´s position in this part of the Moroccan Empire (it was not part of Morocco until the Sultan became king and the Rif gained independence from Spain and the souther part of the country gained control over the Berber lands of the Kabilas)

2.- Support Western Sahara independence in the UN and all the international forums. Grant Saharaui people Spanish support and humanitarian aid and financial funds. Broadcast for the Western Sahara from Canary Islands for the sake of free information and the right of the Saharaui people to have their own mass media.

3.- Sell technology and weapons to Algeria, train their police officers and military personnel. Foster Algeria´s role in the UE-Northern Africa relations. Support Algerian territorial claims (there is a land of about 200.000 square kilometers claimed by Morocco and Algeria)

4.- Help true democratic parties and movements in Morocco allowing them to have voice and presence. Foster a real change in the Moroccan regime, proving that the Tyranny can be replaced for something different than the Islamic fundamentalism.

This last point is the most important one. Helping democracy flourish in Morocco and helping Moroccan people to prosper (without the fear of an almighty feudal regime that controls everything deciding who can get rich and sucking the wealth off the poor Moroccan citizens) would be terrific.

Only the border between North and South Korea exemplifies a bigger gap than the gap between Spain and Morocco in terms of income per capita. This wealth gap must be closed as much as possible and that can´t be done with the current rotten regime. I believe that fostering a large and influent middle class in Morocco and creating the appropriate environment of confidence and freedom is the best that can be done for the sake of Moroccans and Spaniards.

Tweet