The recent discussions in Madrid on the Western Sahara question have brought to light a central element—rarely expressed with such clarity: a profound misalignment between American expectations and the content of the Moroccan document presented as a substantial evolution of the autonomy plan. This diplomatic moment acted as a revealer, exposing not only the limits of the Moroccan proposal but also the strategic ambiguities surrounding the international management of the dossier. Since the United Nations classifies Western Sahara as a non‑self‑governing territory, any political proposal is expected to meet a fundamental legal requirement: enabling the effective exercise of the right to self‑determination. Yet the tension between this principle and the Moroccan claim of sovereignty remains the core of the dilemma.
1. From 4 pages to 40 pages: a change in form without a change in substance?
The Moroccan document presented in Madrid—expanded to roughly forty pages—was expected to meet long‑standing American and UN demands: transforming a brief outline into a detailed, structured autonomy plan consistent with international standards.
Expectations focused on three main areas:
a) Democratic guarantees
A credible autonomy plan requires robust institutional safeguards: separation of powers, free elections, judicial oversight mechanisms, and genuine protection of civil liberties. The difficulty here is not theoretical—it is systemic. When an autonomous territory is embedded within a strongly centralized state, the question becomes: what real guarantees can prevent the gradual erosion of autonomy?
For Western partners, backing an autonomy framework without binding safeguards could amount to tacit support for a permanent political tutelage. This point is central to the American analysis: without institutionally enforceable guarantees, autonomy risks remaining merely declarative.
b) Management of natural resources
The second critical issue concerns economic sovereignty. Western Sahara contains strategic resources—phosphates, fisheries potential, and increasingly significant prospects for rare‑earth elements in the context of the global energy transition.
A genuine autonomy arrangement would require:
- the ability of Sahrawi institutions to manage resources directly;
- the power to conclude external economic agreements;
- real budgetary autonomy.
If the central state retains veto power over external economic relations or resource exploitation, autonomy becomes structurally limited. For Washington—whose strategic interests include secure access to critical minerals—the question is not ideological but practical: who effectively controls the resources?
c) The legal dilemma of sovereignty
The most complex point is legal. The Moroccan plan assumes that sovereignty already belongs to Morocco. Yet the UN still considers the territory non‑self‑governing. This creates a fundamental contradiction:
- If sovereignty is settled, autonomy is merely an internal arrangement;
- If sovereignty is undetermined, it must be resolved through a self‑determination mechanism.
A credible autonomy plan must address—not avoid—this contradiction. In Madrid, this clarification appears not to have been provided satisfactorily.
2. Why did the United States only discover this misalignment in Madrid?
This is one of the major questions.
Two hypotheses emerge:
Hypothesis 1: insufficient prior coordination
Technical consultations may not have revealed the depth of the gap between American expectations and the actual content of the Moroccan document. In complex diplomatic processes, formulations can remain ambiguous until the final confrontation.
Hypothesis 2: a late Moroccan adjustment
Another possibility is a last‑minute strategic recalibration. Faced with internal or regional constraints, Rabat may have reduced the substantive scope of the plan while preserving a formal structure aligned with international expectations.
In both cases, the outcome is the same: diminished credibility in the ability to transform autonomy into an operational solution.
For Washington, this raises a question of reliability: a strategic partner must be capable of producing a stable, coherent, and legally sound framework.
3. The American interest: beyond symbolism
The United States is not seeking a solution for symbolic or emotional reasons. Its motivations are geostrategic and economic:
- securing supply chains for critical minerals;
- stabilizing a sensitive zone on Africa’s Atlantic flank;
- preventing rival powers from filling a strategic vacuum.
From this perspective, legal ambiguity or political hesitancy becomes a direct obstacle to U.S. interests. The exploitation of rare‑earth elements and energy resources requires a stable, internationally recognized legal environment.
If the autonomy plan does not guarantee such stability, it contradicts American objectives.
4. A strategic opening for the Sahrawis?
The misalignment revealed in Madrid creates political space.
If the United States seeks legal security and economic clarity, then the Sahrawi side could articulate a strategic offer built on:
- explicit democratic guarantees;
- transparency in resource management;
- contractual commitments ensuring investment security;
- explicit alignment with international law.
In other words: turning political claims into a structured strategic proposition.
The negotiations expected to take place in the United States in May 2026 may thus become a turning point. In a world competing for critical resources, Western Sahara is no longer merely a decolonization issue—it is becoming a geo‑economic one.
Conclusion
The Madrid talks highlighted an undeniable reality: expanding a proposal from a few pages to a lengthy document does not resolve its structural weaknesses. Democratic guarantees, economic sovereignty, and a clear legal resolution of the sovereignty question remain the three essential pillars of any credible solution.
The U.S.–Morocco misalignment is not a minor misunderstanding; it reveals the tension between political recognition, strategic interests, and international legal constraints.
In this complex geopolitical landscape, credibility, coherence, and the ability to offer a stable framework will be the true currencies of future negotiations.
Comments
Post a Comment