ALGERIAN PATRIOTS - ENGLISH

Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2797 , the Western Sahara file has entered a new phase—one marked less by legal progress than by an intensified battle of narratives. Morocco, supported by certain Western diplomatic circles, has sought to portray its autonomy plan as a definitive, irreversible solution endowed with international legitimacy. Yet a careful reading of the resolution, combined with a strict application of international law , reveals a far more sobering reality: the conflict remains legally unresolved, and Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara has never been established.   Official and unofficial accounts of the Madrid talks converge on a fundamental point often obscured by Moroccan discourse: the United States failed to impose the autonomy plan as the sole outcome of the negotiations. The Sahrawi side , backed by Algeria, maintained a firm and principled stance centered on the right to self-determination as the cornerstone of any ...

The consultations held in Madrid on the Western Sahara dossier—under direct U.S. stewardship—signal a qualitative shift in how the file is being managed: Washington is increasingly setting the pace while the United Nations recedes to an observer role, according to convergent coverage from Spanish, regional, and international outlets.  1) An unprecedented framework: Washington “leads,” the UN observes Multiple reputable outlets report that on February 8, 2026 , a closed‑door meeting took place inside the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, gathering four high‑level delegations—Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, and the Polisario Front—with UN envoy Staffan de Mistura present more as an observer than as the driver, while U.S. officials Massad Boulos (special representative for Africa) and Michael Waltz (U.S. ambassador to the UN) ran point. The Madrid session followed a first, secret 48‑hour contact in Washington roughly two weeks earlier—an unmistakable sign that the U.S. has moved from “facilitator...

At first glance, the renewed discussion surrounding potential U.S. sanctions against Algeria —triggered by reports of advanced Russian arms acquisitions—may suggest an approaching strategic rift between Algiers and Washington. A calm and rigorous reading, however, leads to a very different conclusion: the United States has neither the interest nor the strategic logic to destabilize Algeria, a cornerstone of North African security, a key stabilizing force in the Sahel , and a long-standing partner in counter-terrorism efforts. It is within this broader strategic framework that recent developments concerning the Su-57 in Algeria and the export “rebound” of the Su-35 must be assessed—beyond headlines, through images, open-source intelligence, and the carefully calibrated messaging of major powers. U.S. Sanctions: A Political Lever, Not a Strategy of Rupture The CAATSA framework , routinely invoked whenever Russian arms deals are mentioned, functions primarily as a political deterrent to...

The partial withdrawal of U.S. naval vessels from the Persian Gulf has largely been interpreted, within mainstream discourse, as a mere tactical adjustment or a circumstantial decision tied to the routine management of military deployments. A closer reading of regional strategic dynamics, however, suggests a far more complex reality. The simultaneous presence of Russian and Chinese ships participating in joint military exercises with Iran played a decisive role in this decision, offering the Trump administration a strategic exit from a growing military and political deadlock. An American Strategic Deadlock vis‑à‑vis Iran Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and the implementation of the so‑called “maximum pressure” strategy, Washington multiplied coercive signals toward Tehran: expanded economic sanctions, reinforced military deployments in the Gulf, and an openly bellicose rhetoric. Yet this verbal escalation never translated into a credible or su...

The sixty‑day window that some outlets attributed to U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff closed without a “breakthrough” or any discernible political shift. No agreement, no formal talks, no pressure, no leverage—nothing. That outcome alone undercuts the narrative that framed this window as a “historic opportunity” or a “pressure card” aimed at Algeria. It also invites a broader reading anchored in the structural logic of power in North Africa, the Sahel, and the Mediterranean. 1) Algerian Decision‑Making Sovereignty and the Limits of the Diplomatic “Ultimatum” Algeria’s external posture is rooted in sovereign decision‑making and a renewed non‑alignment: it does not bend to convenience “timelines” or conditional injunctions. This is precisely why no official U.S. position ever established a binding deadline, brandished sanctions, or conditioned energy/economic files on a “response” to the initiative. In practice, the ultimatum is a low‑yield instrument against an actor for whom the political cos...

The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2797 marks a new milestone in the diplomatic struggle over the Western Sahara issue. This resolution reaffirms a fundamental principle: there can be no solution outside the framework of international legality and the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination. While Rabat sought to portray the text as a “diplomatic victory” that consolidates its narrative, Algeria’s interpretation—articulated by Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf in his interview with Algeria International —places events in their proper context and sheds light on the underlying dynamics and power balances that shaped the decision. It is worth noting that this interview represents the first official statement by an Algerian official following the recent speech by the King of Morocco, in which he called for direct dialogue with the Algerian President. Strikingly, Minister Attaf made no mention of this overture, clearly reflecting the limited interest and credibility Algeria ac...

Once again, Morocco’s Foreign Minister, Nasser Bourita, emerges with a faltering discourse, seeking to mask political submission beneath the glitter of a so-called “diplomatic victory.” The man who opened the gates of Rabat to the Mossad now dares to speak of dignity and balance, though he was the one who sold his country’s honor on the altar of the Abraham Accords. What humiliation is he talking about? Is there any greater disgrace than shaking hands with the occupiers of Palestine while pretending to lecture Algeria on courage and restraint? What remains of a diplomacy that takes its orders from Tel Aviv and Washington? Morocco, once a bearer of Arab identity and resistance, has now become a rear base for Israeli intelligence and a conduit for Zionist schemes in the Maghreb. When Bourita speaks of a “hand extended toward Algeria,” we see only a hand stained with the blood of Gaza’s children — a hand that reached first toward the enemy before feigning a gesture of dialogue. Dialogue c...

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 corner...

Since 1963, the Western Sahara has been listed by the United Nations among the non-self-governing territories, awaiting the completion of the process of decolonization. This status means, in legal terms, that the fate of the territory can only be determined through a UN-supervised referendum on self-determination, in accordance with the UN Charter and successive resolutions of the General Assembly. Yet, in 2020, Morocco sought to exploit a unilateral recognition by former U.S. President Donald Trump of its alleged sovereignty over the territory—a political transaction tied to the normalization agreements known as the Abraham Accords. However, despite its media resonance, this move has no legal weight under international law, especially when compared to Trump’s own inability to alter the legal status of territories administered by the United States for decades. The United States and Its Non-Self-Governing Territories: Sovereignty on Hold The United States administers several territories...

As the United Nations Security Council prepares for its decisive vote on October 31, 2025, regarding the renewal of MINURSO’s mandate, discussions over Western Sahara have intensified, exposing a growing polarization within the international community. The draft resolution submitted by the United States—traditionally the penholder on this issue—has stirred notable controversy, revealing persistent rifts between major powers and regional actors. Established in 1991, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) was tasked with overseeing the ceasefire between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, while preparing a self-determination referendum. Yet that referendum has never materialized, and today the mission finds itself weakened by budgetary constraints—chiefly American—and recurrent political deadlocks. In this delicate context, UN Secretary-General António Guterres recommended a one-year extension of the mandate, until October 31, 2026, to allow...