Skip to main content

The Western Sahara issue and Malaysia: An Analysis

The concept of self-determination holds considerable importance in the realm of international relations, particularly regarding global conflicts such as the Western Sahara situation.

Its legitimacy influences governance and shapes the overarching legal and ethical frameworks that inform state conduct.

Self-determination embodies the right of peoples to establish their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development autonomously.

This principle is fundamental to international law and plays a pivotal role in global diplomatic efforts.

Nevertheless, the implementation of this principle frequently gives rise to intricate challenges, particularly in the context of territorial disputes.

International Legal Frameworks 

The principle of self-determination is firmly established in significant international legal instruments, notably the United Nations Charter (1945) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Both documents, through their respective Article 1, affirm the entitlement of all peoples to pursue self-determination. Nevertheless, the practical application of this principle frequently encounters challenges, particularly in reconciling the rights of peoples to self-determination with the territorial integrity of established states. 

A pertinent example is the situation in Western Sahara, where the United Nations acknowledges the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination while simultaneously recognizing Morocco's territorial claims.

This dual recognition has resulted in ongoing conflicts and disputes. Despite a ceasefire facilitated by the UN and repeated calls for a referendum, Morocco continues to assert its sovereignty over Western Sahara, invoking the principle of territorial integrity.

This scenario presents a complex challenge for nations, such as Malaysia, which must carefully balance these conflicting principles within their foreign policy frameworks.

Conflicting Claims

The issue of self-determination is frequently complicated by overlapping territorial claims. A pertinent example is Kosovo, where the 2008 declaration of independence was perceived as an assertion of self-determination by the ethnic Albanian majority.

However, this moves faced opposition from Serbia, Russia, and several other nations, including China.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) subsequently determined that Kosovo's declaration did not contravene international law; nonetheless, it underscored that the legitimacy of self-determination should be assessed in the context of a community's right to self-governance rather than solely through independence declarations.

The status of Kosovo remains contentious, illustrating the tension between self-determination and established state sovereignty.

In a different context, the independence movement in Catalonia, Spain, serves as another instance where self-determination is challenged within an internationally recognized state.

In 2017, Catalonia conducted an independence referendum that the Spanish government and judiciary deemed illegal, reinforcing the principle of territorial integrity.

This situation underscores the complexities that emerge when self-determination is pursued within the confines of an existing state, revealing how concerns for national unity often overshadow the right to self-determination.

Implications for Global Diplomacy 

For nations such as Malaysia, the principle of self-determination significantly influences their diplomatic positions and foreign policy choices.

Having achieved independence through self-determination, Malaysia has consistently championed the right of peoples to pursue self-governance.

Nevertheless, the country also acknowledges the critical need to uphold stability and peace within the realm of international relations. 

Malaysia has actively endorsed the Sahrawi people's claim to self-determination, aligning its stance on the Western Sahara issue with its broader commitment to decolonization and support for United Nations resolutions.

Concurrently, Malaysia must weigh its relationships with countries like Morocco, an essential ally in the Arab world, and the potential repercussions of its position on its diplomatic engagements with other nations.

Effectively navigating these complexities necessitates that Malaysia strike a balance between advocating for self-determination and addressing the realities of international partnerships, economic interests, and regional stability.

Economic and Strategic Implications 

The question of self-determination carries substantial economic and strategic ramifications for nations such as Malaysia.

Supporting the self-determination of a particular region may facilitate the establishment of new economic collaborations, trade agreements, and enhanced influence within international organizations.

Conversely, such support may also result in diplomatic isolation or adverse reactions, especially if a nation's position is viewed as jeopardizing regional stability or contravening the principles of territorial integrity. 

Malaysia's endorsement of self-determination in regions like Western Sahara or Palestine could attract backing from various global and regional entities advocating for decolonization.

However, it may simultaneously complicate relations with nations that possess strategic interests in those areas, such as Morocco or Israel.

This scenario illustrates that while the principle of self-determination is theoretically valid, it can engender tensions and intricate alliances. 

Ethical Considerations and Human Rights 

The validity of self-determination is closely linked to considerations of human rights.

In the context of Western Sahara, the persistent occupation by Morocco and the refusal to conduct a referendum on self-determination for the Sahrawi people have resulted in allegations of human rights abuses, including the suppression of cultural identity, displacement of indigenous populations, and limitations on political freedoms.

Malaysia, given its commitment to human rights and its involvement in international bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council, faces significant pressure to endorse self-determination movements that resonate with human rights principles.

Malaysia's resolute position regarding the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, advocating for the self-determination and rights of the oppressed Muslim minority, underscores its broader commitment to self-determination in contexts where human rights are compromised.

Similarly, Malaysia's advocacy for the rights of the Sahrawi people demonstrates its adherence to ethical principles, particularly the right to self-governance and liberation from foreign occupation.

Conclusion 

The question of self-determination is intricate and encompasses various dimensions, carrying profound implications for international relations, legal frameworks, and human rights.

For Malaysia, addressing this issue necessitates a careful balance between its historical advocacy for self-determination and its pragmatic diplomatic and strategic objectives.

As a federation, Malaysia faces the challenge of navigating the complex dynamics between upholding international justice principles and managing relationships with influential nations, which in turn affects its contributions to global peacekeeping, trade, and international collaboration.

Ultimately, the implementation of self-determination is a nuanced endeavour, influenced by legal, ethical, political, and economic factors.


20.1.2025

Copyright is reserved. © 2025


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Smart Security, Free Society: Malaysia’s Data Dilemma

In today’s digitally driven world, national security is no longer confined to borders or traditional threats. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric warfare have become the new frontiers of conflict. Malaysia, strategically located in Southeast Asia and increasingly exposed to regional tensions and internal vulnerabilities, must strengthen its security apparatus. However, doing so must not come at the cost of civil liberties. Malaysia can enhance its security strategy by leveraging insights from advanced data platforms like those pioneered by Palantir Technologies, while maintaining strong democratic oversight to safeguard the fundamental freedoms protected by the Federal Constitution. Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based company, gained prominence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its core software, Gotham, was designed to integrate fragmented intelligence and provide real-time, actionable insights to military and intelligence agencies. Over the years,...

Syringe Attacks in Malaysia and France: Random Violence or Terrorism? - Part 3

The syringe attack on the 12-year-old son of Pandan MP and former Economy Minister, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, has shaken Malaysia. What initially appeared as a rare and bizarre incident now echoes a disturbing pattern witnessed abroad, notably in France. In June 2025, during the Fête de la Musique festival, over 145 people across France reported being pricked with syringes in crowded public areas. In both cases, the weapon of fear was not a gun or bomb but a syringe. When viewed together, the Rafizi incident and the mass needle attacks in France reveal an alarming global trend of unconventional, psychological violence that leaves behind not just physical uncertainty but emotional trauma. The question we must now ask is: are these acts simply random criminality, or should they be treated with the gravity of terrorist attacks? A Pattern Beyond Borders In France, the attacks spanned multiple cities, with 13 confirmed cases in Paris alone. Victims included women, men, and even min...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.