Deservedly so, it would seem. Sahara-Watch busted out Saturday with a great post about Abrams, in charge of Near East and North Africa for the Bush National Security Council. Sahara-Watch does a better job of explaining, in detail, why Abrams is probably to blame for sabotaging the Western Saharan peace process. I'll review the main points.-Abrams worked in the Reagan administration when it aided King Hassan of Morocco's occupation.
-He has a longstanding distaste for leftist causes, to the point of covering up El Salvadoran massacres of civilians. Since Morocco painted Polisario as Marxists (just as they're trying to use today's bugaboo, terrorism, to alienate potential Sahrawi supporters), there is little love lost between the Western Sahara and Abrams.
-He met with a Moroccan autonomy plan spokesman, lending the proposal much more credibility than it deserves.
Abrams was one of the top neocons rah-rahing the invasion of Iraq, working closely with Richard Perle and writing a letter to Bill Clinton calling for regime change. It's not a far leap to think he'd support any Arab client state, including Morocco, that asked for a little lenience on its own human rights issues in exchange for taking care of some of America's.
Speaking of which, this isn't related to Abrams but Sahara-Watch points it out in the post and it bears mentioning: Morocco is classified as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, which means our defense commitment to them is the same as to Japan or Australia. Shoot.
Abrams is a bad guy, but whether he's sabotaging the referendum process or not, the United States needs to answer for why it has been so reticent on the Western Sahara when there is so much to gain and practically nothing to lose. Morocco, practically an American (and French) proxy state, can't afford to lose Western support. So why don't we apply the right pressure?
Finally, I think it's compelling how much of the who-supports-Polisario guessing game that some people play revolves around famous friendships. Check out Chasli's comment on the post, and his speculation about whether John Bolton, a supposed Western Sahara supporter, could reconcile the disparate views of his friends James Baker (negotiator of the Baker II) and Abrams.
Some day, I will learn how to do jumps for long posts. Until then, though, let's hope that pro-Sahrawi congressional candidates are sent to Washington.