This is a very interesting discussion to me: how best to map a conflict zone.
“Western Sahara” is in fact a political entity, recognised by the United Nations as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, with an ISO-3166 code (EH). It is divided by a ceasefire agreement into three zones: a Buffer Strip (with United Nations peacekeepers) separating the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Free Zone and the zone administered by Morocco (as part of its Southern Provinces).
There are two issues that I see: one is what is the correct political (de jure) boundary, and two is what is the correct military (de facto) boundary.
The problem I have with listing the Free Zone as a level 2 administrative boundary is that nobody recognizes it as such, politically.
–SADR claims ALL of Western Sahara, so those countries that recognize SADR diplomatically would have a Admin Level 2 for all of Western Sahara and label it SADR.
–Morocco also claims ALL of Western Sahara, as an integral part of the country. It is the only country that recognizes that claim, so it would be appropriate for a mapping program (not our concern) to indicate a dashed line if desired. (You could mark the northern boundary of Western Sahara as disputed; the rest is not.)
–The United Nations (and those countries that recognize the claims of neither SADR nor Morocco) recognizes ALL of Western Sahara as a territory without a central government.
So that is the political situation. The military situation is different, and this is where I would propose Admin Level 3, which is the de facto, boots on the ground reality. The Buffer Strip (5 km south and east of the Berm) separates the two sides in practical reality. I would not map any lower Admin Levels on the SADR Free Zone side except those defined by SADR. Similarly, I would not map any lower levels on the Moroccan side except those defined by Morocco.
The current Level 2 map shows something that is recognized by nobody. So I agree with the comment above by RedFox – it is a problem. 4rch uses half of the “on the ground” rule, but there are two parts:
Nobody at all recognizes the AL2 we currently support. So it completely fails the first part of the test. The only “internationally recognised” border – regardless of political position on the dispute between Morocco and SADR – is the full Western Sahara.
As to “realities on the ground”, I agree that if you were to see a street sign west of the Berm it would no doubt say Morocco, and east of the Berm it would say Sahrawi. But I would say that’s a concern of AL3, not AL2, just as a street sign in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Republic of Cyprus would have its respective AL3 in Cyprus.
(What I propose seems to be quite standard on OSM – see Cyprus, Kashmir, Transniestre, etc., etc. Though I acknowledge that Western Sahara is a special case.)
And yes, this will still result in the bizarre situation of AL3’s for Morocco being outside the AL2 for Morocco. I don’t see any way around that – that is the “boots on the ground” reality.
I am happy to go along with the consensus, but I think it would be good to have a standard. (The ISO-3166 standard seems like a good one to me.)
(I note that this rule is not always followed – Kosovo, for example.)
It’s frankly weird to me to see a map of SADR that just depicts just the Free Zone, and it’s equally weird to see a map of Morocco with a truncated lower half. If we go with the AL2 of Western Sahara, then the different factions can convert that into any sort of map they wish. They can read out the EH code as “Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic” or “Kingdom of Morocco” or “Western Sahara” or whatever. And we would still indicate the Free Zone and the Moroccan-administered zone, but at the AL3 level, not AL2.
Cordially,
John
