In its recent PolicyWatch, the Washington Institute presents the enticing prospect of a sixty-day “peace deal,” elevating the Western Sahara file as the sole key to regional de-escalation. Such a vision, while rhetorically appealing, reflects a shallow understanding of Maghrebi realities. It confuses rivalry with war — though Algiers and Rabat are not at war — and reduces a structural, decades-long antagonism that predates 1975 to a single issue: Western Sahara.
Even the note itself concedes that bilateral relations are at a “historic low” without being warlike, which makes the sixty-day ultimatum more of a performative gesture than a viable diplomatic timetable.
A State Rivalry Rooted in Memory, Borders, and Security
From Algeria’s standpoint, the American “diplomatic clock” ignores the historical underpinnings of the dispute: the Sand War (1963–64), the colonial legacy of unclarified borders, successive cycles of tension and freeze — including the land border closure since 1994 — and, most recently, the severance of diplomatic relations in August 2021 following what Algiers called “hostile acts.”
These milestones have forged a state-to-state rivalry interwoven with questions of security, memory, regional stature, energy, and cultural symbolism. Reducing this multifaceted reality to a single territorial quarrel is to deny history itself and to misunderstand a diplomacy built on sovereignty, dignity, and international legality.
Sovereignty Through Firm Silence and Decisive Action
Algeria’s decision, on November 1, 2021, not to renew the Maghreb-Europe Gas Pipeline agreement was not a reactionary move, but a deliberate act of sovereignty. It marked the shift from mere diplomatic coldness to strategic autonomy.
By redirecting its gas exports through Medgaz and LNG channels, Algeria reaffirmed that economic interdependence cannot replace political trust. This was not a marginal gesture, but a statement of independence — a refusal to let economic ties override sovereign choice. Yet the Washington note downplays this decision, overlooking its deeper significance as a tangible manifestation of Algeria’s self-determination in its external relations.
Western Sahara: Central, But Not the Whole Story
Undeniably, Western Sahara remains central to the dispute — but it is neither its origin nor its entirety. For Algeria, this is fundamentally a decolonization issue, not a bilateral one.
The renewal of MINURSO’s mandate on October 31, 2025 (Resolution 2797), reaffirms the United Nations as the sole legitimate framework. The Moroccan autonomy plan, often touted as the only way forward, cannot override the UN-based principle of self-determination.
The U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the territory in December 2020 was a unilateral political gesture — it carries no binding legal weight under international law. Algeria considers it non-operative within the UN framework, and rightly so.
The American Illusion: Mistaking a “Deal” for Peace
The Washington Institute’s approach reflects a persistent bias: viewing the Maghreb through the transactional lens of American deal-making, as though conflicts could be solved through a 60-day timetable and a press release. Yet peace, from Algeria’s perspective, cannot be bought, decreed, or timed.
Three core principles guide Algeria’s position:
- Multilateral Legitimacy: No solution can exist outside the UN framework; unilateral American proclamations cannot replace Security Council resolutions.
- Regional Security: True stability requires verifiable guarantees — continuation of the MINURSO mission, incident monitoring, and ceasefire integrity — not symbolic “grand bargains.”
- National Sovereignty: The rivalry with Morocco involves Algeria’s internal equilibrium and national legitimacy; any diplomatic shift must be sovereignly decided, not externally dictated.
Toward a Realistic Algerian Approach
The Algerian approach does not seek an imposed peace, but a sequenced and verifiable de-escalation process, structured around three priorities:
- Decoupling from artificial timelines: Rejecting ultimatum logic and embedding the process within a gradual UN-led framework that balances autonomy discussions with the right to self-determination.
- Reinforcing the UN safety net: Strengthening MINURSO’s mobility, logistics, and monitoring capacity to reduce tactical risk while political talks advance.
- Partial decoupling of dossiers: Advancing technical and humanitarian cooperation — on border management, trade, and security coordination — without conditioning progress on the final status of Western Sahara.
Conclusion: Peace Is Not Declared, It Is Built
The Washington Institute deserves credit for situating the discussion within a UN timeframe, but its analysis remains overly American-centric and strategically simplistic.
To reduce Maghrebi stability to the equation “Sahara = peace” is to ignore both history and geography — and to misunderstand Algeria’s sense of dignity and justice.
For Algeria, genuine stability rests on two inseparable foundations: a just, UN-based solution to the Western Sahara question, and a gradual normalization of state-to-state relations grounded in mutual respect and restored trust.
In sixty days, one may draft a text — but not resolve a century of rivalry.
Lasting peace requires memory, patience, and legitimacy — values that Algeria continues to uphold, not as posture, but as principle.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment