To listen to certain narratives in Morocco, Ceuta and Melilla appear as Spanish territories whose fate has already been sealed by geography: two European cities on African soil, surrounded by Moroccan territory and destined, sooner or later, to return to their natural environment.
This interpretation possesses undeniable symbolic appeal. It resonates with national sentiment and is frequently reinforced by segments of the Moroccan media landscape. Yet, when examined through the lens of diplomacy and strategy, the picture becomes considerably more nuanced.
For despite maintaining a longstanding historical claim, Morocco has never pursued a comprehensive international strategy aimed at changing the status of Ceuta and Melilla in a manner comparable to other priority foreign policy issues. In practice, Rabat preserves the claim while simultaneously cultivating a pragmatic and cooperative relationship with Madrid, grounded in mutual interests and strategic interdependence.
A Claim More Symbolic Than Diplomatic
To understand the issue, it is essential to distinguish between two different spheres: political rhetoric aimed at domestic audiences and the actual conduct of foreign policy.
Historically, Morocco has asserted claims over the Spanish territories in North Africa. However, contrary to what some nationalist narratives suggest, Ceuta and Melilla do not currently occupy the same diplomatic importance as other strategic issues.
Morocco does not conduct a sustained international campaign to secure their transfer. It has not built a broad diplomatic coalition to challenge their status, nor has it sought to impose negotiations over their sovereignty. Most importantly, Rabat does not behave like a state that regards Spanish control of the two cities as an intolerable situation requiring immediate correction.
The claim therefore exists primarily at the level of discourse. It is sustained by certain media outlets, social networks, and nationalist political actors, while Moroccan diplomacy itself adopts a far more measured approach.
Geography Does Not Create Sovereignty
Supporters of the Moroccan narrative often emphasize the geographical reality of Ceuta and Melilla. Their argument is straightforward: because the two cities are embedded within Morocco's geographical environment, Spanish sovereignty over them is somehow unnatural or unsustainable.
Yet geography alone does not confer sovereignty.
International history contains numerous examples of territories surrounded by another state without their political status being automatically invalidated. Ceuta and Melilla possess Spanish institutions, Spanish law enforcement, Spanish administration, and full integration into Spain's constitutional framework.
Their proximity to Morocco naturally creates a need for cooperation, but it does not alter their legal or political status.
Geography can shape strategic realities. It does not, by itself, determine sovereignty.
Levers That Rabat Chooses Not to Fully Use
The Moroccan narrative frequently highlights the dependence of Ceuta and Melilla on their surrounding environment. However, if Rabat truly viewed recovery of the two cities as an immediate strategic objective, it could seek to systematically exploit logistical, economic, or administrative vulnerabilities.
In reality, it has not done so.
This restraint reflects a basic geopolitical fact: the relationship between Morocco and Spain is characterized by mutual dependence.
Madrid relies on Moroccan cooperation in areas such as migration control, security, intelligence sharing, and counter-trafficking operations. At the same time, Morocco benefits greatly from maintaining stable relations with one of its most important European economic and political partners.
The border is therefore not merely an instrument of pressure; it is also an area where both countries share an interest in preserving stability.
Perejil: A Lasting Strategic Lesson
The Perejil Island crisis of July 2002 remains one of the most revealing episodes in this debate.
When Morocco attempted to establish a presence on the disputed islet, Spain responded rapidly with a military operation that restored the previous situation.
The episode sent a clear message: Madrid did not regard geographical proximity as a reason to compromise its perceived territorial interests.
For Morocco, the crisis also illustrated the limits of a strategy based on creating faits accomplis. Geography alone proved insufficient to alter a broader balance of political, diplomatic, and military power.
Since then, caution appears to have become a central feature of Rabat's approach. Direct confrontation has largely given way to a strategy focused on managing and leveraging interdependence.
Morocco's Real Influence: Negotiation Rather Than Sovereignty
Morocco unquestionably possesses important instruments of influence in its relationship with Spain and the European Union.
Migration management, border control, counter-smuggling cooperation, and security coordination provide Rabat with significant leverage in its dealings with European partners.
However, this influence belongs to the realm of negotiation rather than sovereignty.
Spain may need Moroccan cooperation without accepting any Moroccan claim over Ceuta or Melilla. Confusing functional interdependence with political sovereignty is one of the principal weaknesses of the nationalist narrative surrounding the two cities.
Two Moroccan Discourses, One Strategy
The contrast between Morocco's domestic discourse and its diplomatic behavior is particularly revealing.
Within Morocco, claims over Ceuta and Melilla remain an enduring element of public debate and national rhetoric.
In relations with Spain, however, priorities are markedly different: security cooperation, migration management, trade, investment, intelligence coordination, and regional stability.
This duality is not accidental. It reflects a rational political calculation.
By allowing the claim to remain alive in the public sphere while preserving constructive ties with Madrid, Moroccan authorities can retain a symbolically important position without bearing the potentially heavy diplomatic and economic costs of a direct confrontation.
Pragmatism Over Confrontation
The reason for this caution is fundamentally strategic.
Spain is one of Morocco's most important economic partners and a vital gateway to Europe. It plays a central role in trade, investment, migration, and security cooperation.
An open territorial conflict would therefore impose considerable costs on Morocco.
Consequently, Rabat has adopted a strategy that reconciles two objectives: maintaining a historically significant claim while preserving a stable and productive relationship with Madrid.
Conclusion: Behind the Rhetoric, Realism Prevails
The Ceuta and Melilla question ultimately highlights the gap that can exist between political rhetoric and diplomatic practice.
The claim remains alive in Moroccan public discourse and continues to serve as a powerful symbol. Yet in practice, Rabat has carefully avoided turning that claim into a sustained policy of direct confrontation with Spain.
Since the Perejil crisis, the preferred approach appears to have been different: leveraging geography, migration, security cooperation, and strategic interdependence as tools of negotiation rather than seeking to alter the status quo through escalation.
This is why the argument that Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territories "condemned" by geography appears overstated. Functional dependence is not sovereignty. Geographic proximity is not a title of ownership. Cooperation with Morocco does not imply recognition of Moroccan sovereignty.
Most tellingly, Morocco's own conduct reveals the underlying reality. Despite decades of nationalist rhetoric, Rabat continues to privilege stability, dialogue, and pragmatic cooperation with Madrid.
In the end, the most significant aspect of the issue may be precisely this: behind the language of sovereignty lies a policy that is remarkably pragmatic, realistic, and far more conciliatory toward Spain than nationalist narratives often suggest.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment