The Green March

Both the Houston Agreement and the later Baker II plan to hold a referendum in Western Sahara were derailed primarily by the issue of voter eligibility. Should only people living in the territory be allowed to vote, or could registration extend to Saharawis in camps or abroad? Bigger than that issue, though, was whether Moroccan living in Western Sahara should be allowed to vote.

It seems fair to let them vote, considering that for the most part they're as disconnected from the political situation as the average Saharawi. Besides, by now inter-marriage has blurred the differences between Moroccans and Saharawis. In another colonial situation, it wouldn't be a problem to let the colonists vote, as they'd be vastly outnumbered by the native population. In the Western Sahara, though, there has always been a large contingent of Moroccans, because of the Green March.

When it was clear that Western Sahara was going to be independent, and the International Court of Justice issued its ruling, Morocco gathered 300,000 civilians on the border, luring many with higher wages than they received in Morocco. Before independence was granted, they marched across the border, ignoring both the International Court of Justice ruling and the international community at large.

The 300,000 Moroccans eventually withdrew, having pressured Spain into the Tripartite Agreement, which divided Western Sahara between Mauritania and Morocco without giving the Saharawis a position in the negotiation. Still, many of the marchers returned later for the higher wages, further muddling the issue of who the Western Sahara belongs to.

As Western Sahara Online points out, the Green March was a violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which specifically prohibits an occupier from moving civilians into the occupied territory.