Behind the ornate walls of the Security Council, Washington has retreated from its ambition to make Morocco’s autonomy plan the sole basis for negotiation. Tested against the realities of power politics, this exclusivity collided with UN arithmetic, veto threats, and the jurisprudence of international law, reverting—yet again—to the familiar language of a “just, lasting, and mutually acceptable” solution and the routine extension of MINURSO’s mandate without doctrinal change. In the background, one structural fact remains: the U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty in December 2020, embedded in the diplomatic bargaining of the Abraham Accords, shifted the center of gravity of the issue beyond the UN framework—without creating multilateral consensus.
1) A “Plan” Without the Parties: Algeria Excluded, Sahrawis Marginalized
The 2024–2025 cycles confirmed the impression of a process steered elsewhere: Algeria publicly denounced the American penholder’s “biased” approach and abstained from voting in 2024, while the Council merely renewed MINURSO for another year. More critically, the primary stakeholders—the Sahrawis—were absent from these transactional architectures. The Polisario Front formally rejected any process that predetermines the outcome in favor of autonomy, reiterating that Western Sahara remains a non-self-governing territory under UN classification. This gap between “performative diplomacy” and the requirement of Sahrawi consent blocks any swift resolution.
2) Pressure from Major Powers and the Problem of “Legitimization”
The notion of a Council pressed—under dual U.S. and French pressure—to legitimize an occupation resonates even more strongly when compared to its paralysis on Gaza: repeated U.S. vetoes against ceasefire resolutions, Russian and Chinese vetoes against U.S. drafts—symptomatic of an institution fractured, where “performative diplomacy” too often replaces genuine compromise. In the Saharan file, Paris hardened its political support for autonomy, while the European Union as an institution maintained its pro-UN stance and remained constrained by European Court of Justice rulings requiring Sahrawi consent for any agreement covering the territory. In short: politics realigns, law restrains.
3) The Abraham Accords: Blueprint for an Extra-UN Approach
On December 10, 2020, the White House recognized Morocco’s “sovereignty” over Western Sahara in exchange for Rabat’s normalization with Israel. The tripartite declaration and Congressional brief documented this bargain—a rupture with decades of U.S. caution and a distancing from UN consensus. Since then, several U.S. drafts have sought to lock in autonomy as the sole framework, but all stumbled on the variable geometry of the Council and the specter of veto, reverting to the usual UN formula of balance.
4) Not Rabat’s Victory, but Trump’s Moment + European Realignments
The reelection of Donald Trump reinforced the 2020 recognition and deepened Washington’s pro-autonomy bias (official statements, penholder role). In Europe, Madrid reaffirmed autonomy as “the most credible option,” Paris crossed a political threshold in its support, and Brussels (Belgium) recently joined the camp of explicit endorsers. Yet the EU as such has not endorsed autonomy: its position remains anchored in the UN process, and the ECJ reiterated that Sahrawi consent is a prerequisite for any agreement covering the territory. The shockwave of the Ukraine war—transatlantic cohesion, energy and migration priorities—accelerated this political realignment without lifting the legal constraints.
5) Moscow, Beijing, and Washington’s Temptation of a Maghreb “Pillar”
Great-power competition in Africa fuels an American vision of Morocco as a security pillar in North Africa and the central Sahel—a “stabilizing proxy” role inspired by Middle Eastern models, actively promoted in Atlanticist strategic circles. Conversely, Moscow and Beijing are expanding their influence, including within the Council, weighing against any text perceived as imbalanced. The analogy “Israel in the Levant / Morocco in the Maghreb” may seduce strategists; yet it collides with UN legality (status of decolonization, self-determination) and effectively sidelines Algeria and the Sahrawis as full political actors.
6) The Unrealism of Transactional Diplomacy
Beyond proclamations, the U.S. “plan” does not land:
- Exclusion of key stakeholders: Sahrawis refuse to negotiate under a pre-framed outcome; European jurisprudence enshrines their consent as a legal pivot.
- No consensus in the Council: “Autonomy-only” initiatives dissolve in negotiations, while MINURSO is renewed without mandate change.
- Unchanged ground reality: Security stalemate and the “unsustainability” of the conflict, flagged by UN reports, persist.
Result: a plan neither just (because it ignores Sahrawi agency) nor feasible (lacking legal basis and multilateral support).
7) Algeria: National Security and Red Lines
For Algiers, Western Sahara is a national security issue. At the UN, Algerian diplomacy asserts its paradigm: decolonization, self-determination, rejection of imposed frameworks. Crisis Group analyses warn of escalation risks if a solution is forced without genuine inclusion, in a Maghreb-Sahel environment already fragile. No sustainable security architecture in the region can ignore Algeria—or bypass substantive Sahrawi inclusion.
Conclusion: Under a Sky Heavy with Uncertainty
Western Sahara remains a frozen conflict where the lure of “exclusivity” shatters against the mechanics of multilateralism and legality. America signals, Europe aligns politically, Rabat integrates economically, Algiers draws its red lines—but nothing substitutes for an inclusive process, consistent with the UN framework and grounded in parameters acceptable to all parties. As long as the file is treated as an adjustable variable in geopolitical equations (Abraham Accords, power rivalries, migration management), it will reproduce stalemate and deepen regional fragility. The only credible “rupture” is not textual but procedural (inclusion of Sahrawis and Algeria), legal (respect for UN status and consent), and political (abandoning the transactional reflex). Otherwise, Manhattan’s sky will keep nurturing the illusion of a horizon that never comes.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment