Western Sahara: The Illusion of Victory and the Reality of Power Dynamics

For several months, a deliberate campaign has sought to impose a simple idea: the question of Western Sahara is settled, sealed, irreversible. Morocco, we are told, is no longer negotiating anything; it is merely formalizing a sovereignty already acquired. Washington’s mission, according to this narrative, would be to persuade the Polisario Front to place its signature at the bottom of an agreement whose terms are supposedly already written.

This staging aims to produce a psychological effect: to create the impression that history has already ended. Yet in diplomacy, declaring a conflict resolved does not resolve it. Rhetoric may precede reality; it never replaces it.

Resolution 2797: A Diplomatic Instrument, Not a Blank Check

Resolution 2797 is presented as the definitive consecration of autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. But a strategic reading suggests something quite different.

The Security Council:

• describes the Moroccan initiative as “serious and credible”;
• calls for a political solution;
• insists on its mutually acceptable nature.

The last point is essential. A mutually acceptable solution cannot be imposed. It requires consent, genuine negotiation, and reciprocal concessions. The resolution sets a framework. It does not predetermine the outcome.

Turning a basis for discussion into a final verdict belongs to political communication, not international law.

Autonomy: Credibility With Conditions

The 2007 autonomy proposal was a brief document. Its expanded version—now presented as detailed and institutionally robust—is not the product of spontaneous initiative but of diplomatic requirements.

A credible autonomy arrangement cannot be symbolic. It necessarily entails:

• real control over natural resources;
• an elected governance with substantial powers;
• mechanisms for the protection of rights;
• effective international guarantees.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has reaffirmed an essential principle: resource exploitation must benefit the people of Western Sahara and cannot be decided without their consent.

The issue, therefore, is not only territorial; it is economic, institutional, and democratic.

Washington: A Power of Impulse, Not an Absolute Arbiter

The U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty under the Trump administration altered the balance of power, but it did not erase the multilateral framework.

The United States can accelerate, influence, and orient the process. It cannot, on its own, redefine international law or neutralize the other permanent members of the Security Council.

A solution imposed under pressure, without solid guarantees, would yield a fragile peace. Washington knows this: lasting stability requires a credible architecture.

The Principle That Cannot Be Erased: Self‑Determination

The referendum planned in 1991 has never been held. Yet the principle of self-determination remains legally active. The Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, operates within this framework.

No recent resolution has abolished this principle. None has declared independence legally impossible.

Claiming that the range of possible outcomes is closed corresponds to no binding text. International law functions through precise formulations—and these formulations keep the door open.

The Russian and Chinese Variables: A Balance of Power

Envisioning a settlement dictated exclusively by Washington ignores the reality of the Security Council. Russia, through Sergey Lavrov, has reaffirmed its attachment to self‑determination and to the strict UN framework.

China also defends a cautious, multilateral approach.

In such a system, no actor can impose a definitive scheme without considering global power equilibria. Western Sahara is also a geopolitical dossier.

Triumphant Communication vs. Genuine Negotiation

In any negotiation, each party projects an image of strength. Claiming “we are not negotiating anything” may serve to consolidate domestic opinion. But the very existence of talks, revised documents, and the involvement of international actors demonstrates that the current phase is far from administrative formality.

Negotiation implies potential concessions. If nothing were on the table, no diplomatic architecture would be required.

The Structural Factor: Resources and Legitimacy

The silent core of the dossier remains natural resources. Phosphates, fisheries, and energy potential shape interests. Contemporary international law ties resource exploitation to the consent of the people concerned.

Any solution that ignores this dimension would be legally contestable and politically unstable.

Legitimacy is never proclaimed; it is built.

Conclusion: A Conflict Still Open

The attempt to freeze the dossier in a narrative of definitive victory belongs more to psychological strategy than diplomatic reality.

Resolution 2797 provides a framework. It does not provide an ending.

Autonomy is a proposal, not an accepted obligation.

The United States influences, but does not decide alone.

Major powers balance one another; they do not disappear.

And as long as a “mutually acceptable” solution remains the guiding principle, no signature can be considered a foregone conclusion.

In long conflicts, rhetoric often precedes history. But it is always law, power dynamics, and political legitimacy that ultimately write the conclusion.

---

By Belgacem Merbah

---