Mauritania’s Ambiguous Stance on the Western Sahara Conflict 1575

Aziz Daouda, 9 d.

- World Politics - Politics - History -

2 min read.

The Mauritanian Minister of Culture, Arts, Communication, and Relations with Parliament, Government Spokesperson El Houssein Ould Meddou, recently spoke on France 24 regarding Mauritania’s position on the so-called Western Sahara conflict. Clearly uncomfortable, to the point of appearing surprised by the journalist’s question, he seemed to stammer while affirming that Mauritania adopts a policy of neutrality, introducing a new concept: that of “positive and active neutrality” in this matter. Very clumsily, he reduced the issue to a matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara,” without specifying who exactly he meant. He got further bogged down when he claimed that his country does not limit itself to a passive stance but is sincerely committed to contributing to a fair political solution, serving regional stability and the interests of all parties involved. Again, no clarification was given on who these parties are, and whether his own country is included or not. This borders on contradiction with his earlier statements. According to the Minister, this neutrality is expressed notably by Mauritania’s willingness to play a central role in facilitating dialogue between the conflict’s actors, fostering a climate of trust and overcoming political deadlock. However, he seemed not to have carefully read the Security Council resolutions since 2007. The Minister showed more irritation when the journalist asked about the closure of Lebriga, the border post between Mauritania and Algeria. He appeared unaware of this closure, which is surprising given that the decision sparked major controversy and strong reactions from separatists against his own country and government. After some hesitation, he awkwardly stated that the recent Mauritanian decision to close the Lebriga crossing on the Algerian border was a measure taken for internal security reasons, aimed at controlling crossings and protecting national sovereignty. His attempt to recover only entrenched him further. For him, this decision has no political significance and targets no particular party but responds to a state approach to securing borders. Quite astonishing. The Mauritanian Minister thus explicitly reduced the so-called Western Sahara conflict to a simple matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara.” Did he realize at that moment the sensitive political repercussions he was causing? Indeed, this position was perceived as indirect support for the Algerian version of the conflict. Algeria quickly reacted by officially inviting the minister and bestowing many honors on him. This instant Algerian response can only be interpreted as a reward for the minister’s risky stance. He thus placed himself in a situation where he contradicted himself. The “positive neutrality” he mentioned becomes clear: it is actually alignment with the Algerian position. This situation embarrassed the Mauritanian government and presidency, which did not officially endorse the minister’s remarks. Several government members expressed discomfort with this statement, emphasizing that it does not reflect Mauritania’s official position. Moreover, within Mauritanian civil society, critical voices emerged, denouncing the apparent ignorance of the minister on sensitive issues, notably the border with Algeria. During the interview, the journalist noted that the minister seemed poorly informed on this subject, which heightened the discomfort around his statements. On the Moroccan side, the reaction to the Mauritanian government spokesperson’s remarks was very measured, even officially nonexistent. Morocco, as usual, chose not to publicly respond to this declaration, probably considering that the Mauritanian minister is only a marginal actor, not part of Mauritania’s true leadership circle. This silence can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid giving importance to these remarks, so as not to fuel unnecessary controversy or unduly embarrass Mauritania’s real leaders. It should be noted that this interview took place before recent Polisario strikes near Smara, close to MINURSO positions, which officially complained. The mercenaries operated by passing through Mauritanian territory, where they were neutralized by the Royal Armed Forces. The clumsy declaration of the so-called spokesperson created implicit diplomatic tension, revealing internal divisions in Mauritania and illustrating the regional complexities surrounding the so-called Western Sahara conflict, where every stance is scrutinized and can have significant diplomatic consequences, without hindering the inevitable and confirmed historical evolution: the progress and consolidation of the solution proposed by Morocco, reinforced by the recognition of the Moroccan sovereignty over the territories in question by nearly all key countries, among others. By his posture, the minister thus disregarded recent developments, notably the bipartisan introduction in the U.S. Congress of the “Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act,” which a political leader in his position could not have ignored. He simply sidelined his own country, which is directly impacted.

Algeria Faces Strategic Imperative to Disarm Polisario Amid Geopolitical Shifts 206

Aziz Daouda, 6 h.

- World Politics - Politics - History -

3 min read.

*The disarmament of the Polisario now appears as the *ultimate option* Algeria might face in light of recent geopolitical and diplomatic developments. Several factors converge toward this perspective, which is no longer merely hypothetical but a strategic and political necessity. For several years, the international community, notably driven by the United States, has clearly positioned Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the only credible basis for resolving the so-called Western Sahara conflict. This shift has fundamentally changed the dynamics, marginalizing the Polisario and weakening its traditional support, especially from Algeria. Algeria, which has long provided military and political backing to the Polisario, now finds itself in a delicate position, under international pressure and confronted with realities on the ground. The movement of Polisario militias out of Algerian territory perfectly reflects Algeria’s impotence, even debacle, as separatists openly use it as a logistical rear base. Separatist incursions into the buffer zone—part of Moroccan territory, a restricted area under tight Moroccan military surveillance—significantly weaken the Polisario, which emerges defeated each time. **In an already tense regional context, the recent terrorist attack in Mali illustrates the worsening security threats. Several Malian cities have been seized by a genuine terrorist army, an unprecedented coalition of all extremist factions in the region, including about 300 fighters armed and coming from the Polisario. This alliance complicates the security landscape in West and North Africa, blurring lines between armed groups and political movements, increasing pressure on neighboring states, particularly Algeria with its porous borders. For the first time, terrorists approached the Senegalese border, a significant development. Are we on the verge of the birth of another Islamic state?** In the United States, bipartisan calls to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization implicitly target Algeria, which could be labeled a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Facing these pressures, the Algerian military junta has few options. The most likely is a calibrated backtrack: accepting Morocco’s autonomy proposal as a negotiation basis. Reluctantly, it is forced to reduce its military support for the Polisario, which will also lose backing from Iran and its proxies. In this context, disarming the Polisario is not only a military option but a political and security imperative. Maintaining armed militias, fed illusions and weapons for decades, has become a burden for Algeria, which must now consider their dissolution, halt their funding, and isolate the most belligerent elements. This implicit approach aligns with the political settlement logic based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal. It would pave the way for the return of Sahrawis held in camps to their Moroccan homeland. The political end of the Polisario renders its armed existence obsolete. Disarmament thus appears as Algeria’s last card to exit the Western Sahara conflict deadlock without losing face or risking international sanctions. This choice, imposed by circumstances, could mark the end of an armed confrontation era and open the path to a painful but peaceful resolution for separatists and Algerian military leaders, who would suffer yet another defeat against Morocco. On the other hand, Algeria must finally allow a precise census of the Tindouf camp inhabitants and clearly determine their origins. It is known that Sahrawis from Moroccan Sahara are a minority, about one-third of the population. This census, repeatedly requested by the United Nations and the UNHCR, is essential to ensure transparency and the future of all. Morocco would likely not allow non-Moroccans to settle on its territory. Algeria’s persistent refusal to permit this census raises serious questions about its motives, given contradictions over the real number and origins of the camp populations, who are not only displaced from Western Sahara but also include Sahrawis from Algeria, Mauritania, and elsewhere. This opacity contributes to militarization and a situation contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention principles, as populations are effectively detained and armed, incompatible with refugee status. Moreover, a refugee cannot be armed. Disarming the Polisario is thus a major strategic and political necessity for Algeria, facing increased international, especially American, pressure demanding not only militia disarmament but also dismantling of the Tindouf camps. Maintaining armed militias in these camps is a real burden for Algiers and an obstacle to peaceful regional relations. Population census is therefore an essential step to clearly distinguish civilian refugees from armed fighters, a prerequisite for disarmament and militia dissolution. Without this clarification, the international community cannot control the situation, prevent fraud, or guarantee regional security. In sum, Algeria must stop evading its responsibilities by finally allowing an internationally supervised census, which would open the way to more transparent and humane conflict management while facilitating Polisario disarmament, indispensable for a lasting political solution based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal. This difficult but unavoidable choice is crucial to avoid diplomatic isolation, sanctions risk, and regional security deterioration. However, this option remains delicate and fraught with consequences for Algiers, which must first convince its population of the paradigm shift and find solutions for separatists whose hands are stained with blood. Disarming the Polisario, far from a mere military operation, will be a major turning point in regional dynamics and a decisive test for Algerian diplomacy. This will require great courage and perhaps new leadership.*