Western Sahara: UN Resolution 2797 — A Geopolitical Turning Point with Deep Implications for Algeria

A seemingly technical decision, yet politically decisive

On 31 October 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2797, extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) for one additional year, until October 2026.

Although this may appear as a routine administrative renewal, it actually represents a critical diplomatic juncture—one that could reshape the geopolitical balance of the Maghreb and directly affect Algeria’s vital national interests.

An ambiguous resolution: neither a rupture nor full continuity

Adopted by 11 votes in favor and 3 abstentions (China, Russia, and Pakistan), Resolution 2797 extends the mandate of MINURSO to maintain the ceasefire and prepare the conditions for a referendum on self-determination for the Sahrawi people.

Contrary to some media narratives, the resolution does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

It reaffirms instead the principle of self-determination, the cornerstone of UN decolonization doctrine, granting the Sahrawi people the right to freely choose their own future—whether independence, autonomy, or integration.

However, the text introduces a subtle but politically charged innovation: for the first time, it refers to the concept of “genuine autonomy.”

This term, inserted at the initiative of U.S. diplomacy, implies that the 2007 Moroccan autonomy plan cannot be accepted in its current form.

Rather, it must be revised, adapted, or deepened to meet the criteria of a true or authentic autonomy consistent with UN principles.

In other words, the United States is pressuring the process toward an autonomy framework, while maintaining the façade of self-determination.

This is a calculated ambiguity, designed to appease Morocco without openly contradicting international legality.

Algeria’s position: firmness in principle, restraint in posture

Algeria has remained faithful to its historical stance—steadfast support for the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination, rejection of any imposed settlement, and respect for international legality.

By abstaining from participation in the vote, Algeria expressed a principled objection to a text that, in its view, does not reflect the UN’s decolonization doctrine, while still maintaining open communication with the organization.

This measured approach reflects the maturity and consistency of Algerian diplomacy—firm on principles yet tactically flexible, committed to a just solution grounded in law and popular sovereignty.

The U.S. strategy: pragmatism cloaked in pressure

The United States played a central role in shaping the resolution’s final form, seeking to anchor the Moroccan autonomy proposal as the primary basis for negotiation.

Statements by Massad Boulos, senior adviser to former President Donald Trump, praised the resolution as “a historic step toward genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty.”

Yet this interpretation is legally inaccurate.

The Security Council did not recognize Moroccan sovereignty, nor did it abolish the right to self-determination.

What is occurring, rather, is a U.S. attempt to steer negotiations toward a pre-defined outcome—autonomy—while retaining the formal language of choice.

This approach, mixing diplomatic influence with political coercion, risks transforming a decolonization process into a managed conflict under external supervision, undermining the very foundations of international legitimacy.

Algeria’s vital interests: between prudence and strategic leverage

For Algeria, Western Sahara is not a marginal issue. It is a matter of national security, strategic balance, and moral consistency.

1. Regional security

The growing international alignment with Morocco’s position risks destabilizing the Maghreb’s fragile equilibrium.

Despite persistent provocations, Algeria has so far exercised notable restraint, avoiding any direct military support to the Polisario Front and upholding the UN-led diplomatic track.

This prudence underscores Algeria’s responsible statecraft and its desire to prevent open conflict in an already volatile region.

2. Diplomatic leadership

Algeria remains a symbol of liberation movements and international legality, a respected voice within the African Union and the Non-Aligned Movement.

It retains strong alliances across Africa, Latin America, and Asia—countries that continue to view Western Sahara as a case of unfinished decolonization, not a bilateral territorial dispute.

3. Internal stability and regional deterrence

Any attempt to marginalize Algeria or impose an externally driven settlement could produce the opposite effect.

If pushed into a corner, Algeria may be compelled to reassess its strategic doctrine, including its regional security posture.

Such a shift would endanger the fragile peace of the Maghreb, creating a new phase of unpredictability that no regional or global actor could fully control.

Looking ahead: pragmatism and strategic recalibration

Far from being isolated, Algeria still holds significant diplomatic, economic, and strategic assets.

Its future course could rest on four key pillars:

• Strengthening alternative alliances with Russia, China, and the Global South to safeguard the UN’s legal framework for decolonization;
• Reinvigorating the African Union’s role, reaffirming that Western Sahara remains a non-self-governing territory under international law;
• Modernizing its defense diplomacy, balancing deterrence and dialogue to maintain regional stability;
• Leveraging its energy power as a sovereign instrument of geopolitical influence and conditional diplomacy.

Conclusion: between principle and realism — the Algerian path

An Ambiguous Resolution, a Diplomatic Deadlock

The United Nations Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 2797 last Friday, intended to extend the mandate of MINURSO (the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara), has paradoxically reignited tensions surrounding the territory. Beneath the surface of diplomatic consensus lies a subtle maneuver that threatens to undermine the very foundations of international law.

Drafted by the United States, the resolution introduces for the first time the notion of “genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty” as the “most realistic” solution. This deliberately ambiguous phrasing does not affirm Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory, but rather seeks to steer the political interpretation of the conflict. This semantic shift, far from trivial, marks a departure from the Council’s historically neutral stance on decolonization.

Algeria: Between Principle and Tactical Agility

In response to this biased text, Algeria chose not to participate in the vote—a deliberate and principled absence, clearly explained by its Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Amar Bendjama. He condemned a resolution that disregards the aspirations of the Sahrawi people, sidelines the proposals of the Polisario Front, and betrays the spirit of the UN’s decolonization doctrine.

True to its historical commitments, Algeria sought to rebalance the original draft by introducing references to the right to self-determination and to unconditional negotiations. Yet the deficiencies remain, and the framework proposed is too narrow to foster an inclusive peace process.

A Stillborn Resolution

Resolution 2797 fails to establish the conditions for a political settlement. It enshrines an imbalance between the parties, highlighting Morocco’s territorial ambitions while silencing Sahrawi claims. The Polisario Front, a key stakeholder in the conflict, finds its proposals ignored and its role diminished.

As for the abstentions by Russia, China, and Pakistan, they reflect strategic caution. These powers do not endorse the Moroccan plan but opted not to obstruct the renewal of MINURSO’s mandate. Their stance underscores the lack of international consensus around the autonomy proposal.

Law Versus Power Politics

Far from paving the way for a “mutually acceptable” solution, this resolution entrenches a diplomatic impasse. It attempts to replace justice and legality with short-term interests—driven by internal American calculations and transactional motives. Such an approach risks opening the door to instability in an already fragile region.

Algeria, maintaining a posture that is both principled and constructive, must now balance unwavering commitment with tactical flexibility. For as long as the Sahrawi people are denied their inalienable right to freely determine their future, the conflict cannot be reduced to a mere regional dispute—it remains a case of unfinished decolonization.

A Celebration Without Victory

Resolution 2797, adopted amid diplomatic fanfare by some, does not represent progress. Rather, it exposes the limits of multilateralism in the face of power dynamics. Morocco, despite its public satisfaction, would do well to show more humility: the autonomy plan is neither clearly defined nor universally accepted. Even the United States, by referring to a “genuine autonomy plan,” implies that it remains a work in progress.

In this context, Algeria remains steadfast in its principles: defending international legality, preserving regional stability, and upholding the right of peoples to self-determination—until justice prevails over force, and legitimacy triumphs over the calculations of power.

---

By Belgacem Merbah

---