单选题 .  Depending on whether you believe in principle or the art of the possible, the United Nations' new proposal for the future of Western Sahara is either a betrayal or a dogged     21    at a settlement. It suggests that for the next four years Western Sahara should be a part of Morocco     22    will     23    the Moroccan flag and     24    the Moroccan constitution, hut at the same time it will be "autonomous". After four years there may—but only may—be a referendum to decide whether it stays Moroccan or becomes a separate state.
    Morocco invaded this corner of north-west Africa in 1975 when the old colonial power, Spain, was preparing to     25    out. The International Court of Justice ruled the Moroccan occupation     26    , and a nasty little war ensued between Morocco and an independence movement, the Polisario Front. They signed a     27    in 1991, and agreed to a vote on the future of the territory,     28    by the UN.
    Instead of grinding     29    an appeals procedure, or declaring Morocco to be in     30    , the UN now appears to have decided to abandon the whole exercise. The result may be virtually to hand the country     31    to Morocco.
    The new plan, drawn up by James Baker, a former American secretary of state,     32    that the agreed list of voters should elect an executive that will.     33    the country's internal affairs for the next four years.     34    , this executive will be responsible to an assembly elected by all adults now living in the territory, most of     35    are pro-Moroccan. After four years the assembly will     36    a new executive. Morocco will also appoint the judges and be responsible for law and order     37    the transition.
    Polisario has, unsurprisingly, rejected the proposal, but its options are     38    . It can hardly go back to war without Algerian     39    , which looks     40    . And retiring for a sulk in the Sahara desert is hardly an eye-catching form of protest.21.