European Diary/Jamie Smyth: A political storm that has been brewing in the waters off the north coast of Africa for almost a year is set to engulf Brussels sometime over the next few weeks. At stake is a controversial €144 million fisheries deal agreed by the EU and Morocco last year.
The deal provides Europe's hard up fishermen with a new annual quota of 60,000 tonnes of fish from Moroccan waters for a period of four years. Irish fishermen would benefit from an extra 6,000 tonnes quota of pelagics, which are fish species such as mackerel and sardines.
But in several EU states there is a growing opposition to the deal, which campaigners allege tramples over the rights of the Saharawi people of Western Sahara - a former Spanish colony in north Africa that was illegally annexed by Morocco in 1976.
"I am extremely critical of the proposed agreement, which - in my opinion and that of my political group, the Greens - is illegal because of its inclusion of the Western Sahara," says British MEP Caroline Lucas. "It is putting profit before principle."
Western Sahara is a mainly desert area in northwest Africa sandwiched between Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. Its coastal waters are abundant with fish and may also contain lucrative offshore oil deposits.
When its former colonial ruler Spain withdrew in 1976 both Morocco and Mauritania invaded the territory claiming it as their own against the wishes of the indigenous nomadic Saharans, known as the Saharawi people.
The invasion occurred despite a declaration by the International Court of Justice in 1975 that the people of Western Sahara have the right to self-determination.
The Saharawi, who had formed their own political organisation called the Polisario in 1973, later fought a guerrilla war against the Moroccans (Mauritania withdrew in 1978) until 1991 when a UN brokered ceasefire was announced.
The UN peace plan involved setting up a referendum in the territory to decide if Western Sahara should integrate with Morocco or become an independent state.
The referendum has never taken place due to disputes with Morocco over whether its settlers in the territory are entitled to vote, leaving 150,000 Saharawi people languishing in limbo in refugee camps in neighbouring Algeria for the past 30 years.
"These are the hottest refugee camps in the world, places where people are living in tents and mud buildings," says Nick Dearden, senior campaigns officer at the British charity War on Want, who believes the EU-Morocco deal is a misappropriation of Saharawi resources.
"All we are asking for is the insertion of a specific clause in the agreement that states this it does not include Western Sahara waters," says Dearden, who published details of a leaked opinion by the European Parliament legal service on the deal yesterday.
This concludes that the EU fisheries agreement - which does not even mention Western Sahara - will enable EU fishermen to fish in its territorial waters.
However, it says this does not necessarily mean the deal is illegal because Morocco may use the money generated from the fisheries deal to benefit the people of Western Sahara.
"It depends upon how the agreement will be implemented," concludes the parliament's legal opinion.
The commission strongly defends its deal, which fisheries commissioner Dr Joe Borg says is in conformity with international law and with the legal opinion of the UN.
"Considering that Morocco is a de facto administrative authority of Western Sahara, it is the obligation of the Moroccan side to take all the appropriate measures to ensure the full application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement in accordance with its obligations under international law," says Dr Borg's official spokeswoman.
But campaigners believe that Morocco has no plans to honour a verbal commitment to use a portion of the cash generated from the deal to improve the conditions of the Saharawi people.
"It is extremely unlikely that this deal would benefit the Saharawi people because it will go to support the fishing industry in Morocco, which is mainly controlled by Moroccan generals and in Western Sahara by Moroccan settlers," says Nick Dearden.
"At most it would benefit a handful of Western Saharan fishermen and not the Saharawi people in exile."
Diplomats from Sweden and Britain are increasingly concerned about the proposed deal as it comes closer to implementation. "We are asking our own legal services to review this deal to see if this deal is to the benefit of the Western Sahara people," says Robin Rosenkranz, a Swedish diplomat in Brussels. "We haven't decided to vote against it yet, but we are going to make sure the agreement conforms to international law . . . I wouldn't erase the risk of this deal attracting a blocking minority when it is voted on by the council."
Surprisingly, the Irish Government - which has for years promoted the rights of the Saharawi people - is taking a back seat in this controversial fisheries debate at the EU.
"Ireland's basic approach to the issue of the EU-Morocco fishing agreement has been that the deal should not infringe the position held by Ireland and the EU on the status of the Western Sahara," said an Irish diplomat, who stressed that this decision had nothing to do with the additional quota for Irish fishermen.
"The Government will be examining the draft agreement for its conformity with international law."
Negotiations on the deal will continue next week and a vote is expected at the council of fisheries ministers meeting next month. The Saharawi people will no doubt watch with interest.