Think Forward.

World Politics

February, Forty-Five Years Later: The Inevitable End of the Mullahs... 501

Aziz Daouda, 2 d.
Forty-five years ago, in February 1979, Iran tipped into what was presented to the world as a "revolution." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power on behalf of a people exhausted by the authoritarianism of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, only to drag the country into a political, moral, and civilizational abyss from which it has never recovered. Yet this shift did not emerge from nowhere: it fit into a tormented trajectory marked by two exiles of the shah, the first in 1953, temporarily ousted by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and the second in January 1979, definitive and humiliating. **To understand this tipping point, we must go back to the Mossadegh period (1951-1953), a foundational episode often obscured by post-revolutionary propaganda.** Democratically elected, Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry right under British Petroleum's nose, embodying the aspiration for economic sovereignty against Western imperialism. He sought a secular and independent Iran, multiplying social reforms and curbing British influence. This boldness triggered a chain reaction: a coup orchestrated in August 1953 by the CIA (Operation Ajax) and MI6 restored the shah to the throne, exiled Mossadegh, and ushered in an era of repression under SAVAK, the secret police. This traumatic event planted the seeds of anti-Western resentment that Khomeini would later exploit, while legitimizing for many the image of a shah as a puppet of foreign powers. *Back in power, the shah launched his "White Revolution" in 1963: a vast agrarian modernization, women's emancipation (including the right to vote), accelerated industrialization, and secular education. Iran became a prosperous oil state, a U.S. ally, with dazzling economic growth—up to 12% annually in the 1970s.* But this masked gaping flaws: endemic corruption, growing inequalities, repression of opponents (especially Shiite clergy, communists, and nationalists), and a Westernization seen as cultural betrayal. The 1978 protests, bloodily repressed in Qom and Tabriz, culminated in the shah's second exile on January 16, 1979, as he fled to Morocco and then the United States, where he died in exile a year later. Khomeini returned triumphantly from Paris on February 1, capitalizing on this vacuum and promising social justice where the shah had failed. Today, Iran is breathless. The mullahs' regime is underground, besieged by its own people. The revolt rumbles on deep, enduring, irreversible. In this ideologico-theocratic system, the regime's response is singular, mechanical, Pavlovian: accuse the people of treason. Treason to what? To a regime that has hijacked the state, stifled society, and shattered the future? *Iranians demand neither the impossible nor utopia. They seek dignity, a decent life, the freedom to breathe. Women want to exist without surveillance, humiliation, or violence. The young want to live, love, create, work, hope. They are fed up with the Revolutionary Guards *the Pasdarans* this ideological militia turned state within a state, economy within an economy, controlling 60% of GDP.* Faced with this popular anger, the mullahs' discourse is frozen in another age: everything is the fault of the USA, Israel, external plots. A victimhood rhetoric, worn to the thread by turbaned figures steeped in certainties from another century. The regime has always needed confrontation to survive. It allows them to pose as victims, artificially rally supporters, and justify internal repression. Instead of listening to the streets, those in power seek regional escalation, convinced an external enemy will erase the internal one. **Since its birth, the Islamic Republic has sought to export its ideology through proxies: in Lebanon, Hezbollah; in Syria, support for Assad; in Iraq, Shiite militias; in Yemen, the Houthis; and elsewhere. Everywhere, the result is the same: desolation, social fragmentation, destruction of states and societies. Lebanon would not be a shadow of itself without this interference. Syria would probably not be this field of ruins without Tehran's ideological obsession.** History's tragic irony: this supposedly "anti-imperialist" project has chiefly fed the world's largest arms market. The region, to protect itself from this doctrine emerging from history's underbelly, has armed and militarized itself. The war with Iraq, lasting over a decade from 1980 and costing a million lives, temporarily bolstered the Iranian regime by uniting the nation against the Sunni invader, while radicalizing Saddam. Feeling untouchable after battling Iran on behalf of the region and, he thought the world, Saddam then invaded Kuwait in 1990, sealing his doom. None of this would have happened without the existence of this radical theocratic regime, whose sole legitimacy rests on permanent confrontation. Iran is no ordinary state. It is a millennial civilization, one of humanity's most fertile. It has given the world major contributions in mathematics, philosophy, medicine, poetry, art, and foundational narratives. From Khayyam to Al-Kindi, Avicenna to Al-Farabi or Suhrawardi, the Persian heritage belongs to all humanity. And yet, for forty-five years, this civilization has been held hostage by a power that denies, despises, and distorts it. A power that confuses faith with domination, spirituality with coercion, inverting the shah's modernist dreams and Mossadegh's sovereignist ideals. Today, the regime still holds. It battles the streets, pitting weapons against bare hands, oppression against a society that fears no more. The death toll rises. The Supreme Leader's threats still echo, but they no longer make anyone tremble. The young do not flinch. They are there and will remain. History is cruel to such regimes. The Bolsheviks fell. The Chavistas are collapsing. The mullahs will follow. It is only a matter of time. *Ibn Khaldun understood it before all others: no power can survive eternally through pressure and oppression. Domination carries the seeds of its own end within it. When 'asabiyya (social cohesion) dissolves, the regime falls—as with the shah and the ousted Mossadegh, soon the mullahs.* February approaches. The historical loop may be closing. The world watches. Free peoples hope and pray that the Iranian people will finally be delivered from its false guardians of peace, and that Iran will reclaim its natural place: that of a living, serene nation contributing to civilization, not a prisoner of its gravediggers.

Venezuela after Maduro: Democratic Transition or New Imbroglio? 1182

Aziz Daouda, 5 d.
- World Politics - History -
3 min read.
Whether one agrees with Donald Trump or not, the fall of Nicolás Maduro marks a historic turning point in Venezuelan history and, more broadly, in the history of the region and the world. After more than a decade of authoritarian governance, economic collapse, and mass exile, Maduro's capture appears both as a relief for part of the population and as a shock to the international legal order. The arrest of the president, or the suspect, depending on one's perspective, who was exfiltrated and then indicted in the USA for narcotrafficking and corruption, thus concentrates hopes for political transition and accusations of imperialist interference. Venezuela, despite possessing the world's largest proven oil reserves, has experienced a rapid degradation of its democratic institutions since the beginnings of the Bolivarian Revolution. First under Hugo Chávez, then under Maduro, the country has seen its economy crumble, with recurrent hyperinflation, collapse of the national currency, and widespread impoverishment. From 2014 onward, the crisis turned into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe: shortages of medicines, collapse of public services, and endemic insecurity. The human dimension of this crisis is equally dramatic: nearly eight million Venezuelans have left the country over the past decade, fleeing hunger, repression, and lack of prospects. Internally, political opponents have been marginalized, judicial independence undermined, and fundamental freedoms curtailed, to the point that many international organizations describe it as an authoritarian regime or hybrid dictatorship. Chavismo has morphed into a corrupt oligarchy, capturing oil rents for the benefit of a politico-military elite and criminal networks, a model far from unique. The Trump administration, back in power with an uncompromising discourse against regimes labeled "socialist" or "narco-states," has gradually hardened its strategy toward Caracas. For several years, Washington has multiplied pressures: heavy economic sanctions targeting the national oil company, financial restrictions, naval blockade, and designation of Maduro's inner circle as a transnational criminal organization. Officially, these measures aimed to choke the regime's resources, particularly oil revenues and narcotrafficking flows. In January 2026, this maximum pressure strategy reaches its peak with an operation of exceptional magnitude. Targeted strikes and a special operation coordinated by the United States Southern Command result in Maduro's capture in his bed, followed by his transfer out of Venezuelan territory. President Trump himself publicly announces that Maduro and his wife have been arrested and will be tried in the USA for narcotrafficking, corruption, and participation in an alleged cartel designated as a terrorist organization. In the aftermath, Trump promises that the United States will guarantee a "safe and orderly" political transition for Venezuela, even going so far as to mention the possibility of "managing" the country until credible elections are organized. This military intervention immediately triggered a cascade of contrasting reactions, revealing deep polarization both domestically and internationally. For its supporters, the operation is a form of liberation: it ends a regime accused of repressing its people, rigging elections, and diverting the country's wealth to politico-mafia networks. Part of the Venezuelan opposition, whether in exile or still on the ground, presents Maduro's capture as a historic opportunity to rebuild democratic institutions and revive a bloodless economy. For its detractors, on the other hand, the U.S. intervention constitutes a flagrant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law, particularly the principle of non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter. Some Latin American and European governments, as well as UN spokespeople, have denounced a unilateral U.S. operation and warned against a dangerous precedent legitimizing similar actions elsewhere in the world. Even within the Venezuelan opposition, some actors fear that the end of internal authoritarianism might open the door to a lasting external tutelage, further exacerbating the divide between pro- and anti-intervention factions. Beyond moral or legal justifications, the geopolitical and energy dimensions are central to understanding the initiative. Venezuela holds considerable but low-quality oil reserves that actors like China and Russia have sought to secure through long-term agreements, massive loans, and equity stakes. This increased presence of rival powers at the gates of the United States runs counter to the old Monroe Doctrine and fuels, on the American side, the perception of a strategic challenge in what Washington considers its "backyard." From this perspective, the intervention cannot be read solely through the prism of human rights or solidarity with the Venezuelan people. Washington also seeks to regain control of the region, reduce Moscow and Beijing's influence in Latin America amid heightened global rivalry. This ambivalence, between rhetoric of democratic liberation and strategic interests, fuels mistrust, particularly in the Global South. Whatever one's opinion of the U.S. intervention, one point remains central: no lasting political transition can succeed without the full adhesion and active participation of the entire Venezuelan people. The end of the Maduro era opens a window of opportunity to rebuild democratic institutions, restore the rule of law, guarantee freedom of expression, and revive the economy, but this window can close quickly if the transition is led solely by external actors. Recent examples from Iraq, Libya, and Syria confirm this. True liberation will not come solely from the fall of a leader, however authoritarian, nor from the promises of a foreign power, however influential. It will depend on an inclusive political process capable of bringing together a deeply fractured society, preventing score-settling, and avoiding the emergence of a new system of dependency, whether economic, security-related, or diplomatic. It is up to the Venezuelans to define, over the long term, the contours of their future, if possible with international support based on law, cooperation, and respect for their sovereignty. The position of the military also warrants close scrutiny.

Maduro, from Sovereign to American Defendant... or The last night of Raiss Maduro... 1321

Aziz Daouda, 6 d.
- World Politics - History -
3.4 min read.
The scenario is now factual: capture, transfer to New York, indictment for narcoterrorism. A historic precedent. Now it's time for "Debates" or "Opinions." From head of state to cartel leader: the Maduro case, or when power redefines the law. An incumbent president is extracted from his palace: Bombs are dropped in the distance; diversion of attention and paralysis of defense systems; A perfectly mastered and executed scenario. A head of state has been abducted by a foreign army and then paraded in handcuffs before the cameras in New York: the scene recalls the end of Manuel Noriega in 1989. This time, it's not the Panamanian general but the revolutionary Nicolás Maduro, a sort of Bolivarian relic, head of the Venezuelan state since 2013, now officially prosecuted for narcoterrorism by American justice and incarcerated in Brooklyn. The message is crystal clear: when a superpower decides, a president can cease to be a subject of international law to become just another cartel leader. Power will determine both the qualification and the fate: in a different unfolding, Gaddafi and Saddam met different ends but also at the hands of foreign powers. The keystone of this operation is less military than narrative. Washington does not present Maduro as a political enemy, but as the mastermind of a transnational criminal conspiracy, extending the indictment already filed in 2020 before the New York federal court. This simple categorical shift, from political to penal, from sovereign to trafficker, allows it to bypass the contemporary obsession with sovereignty, head-of-state immunity, and the need for a UN multilateral mandate. The image is no longer that of an invasion, but of an "extraterritorial police operation" aimed at protecting American public health, a narrative well-honed since the "war on drugs" in Latin America. It feels like watching a TV series scene: DEA agents and special forces, reading of rights, transfer to a federal detention center, solemn announcement by the prosecutor. In reality, it's a demonstration of strategic power. The arrest of a head of state in his bed, with his security apparatus caught off guard and possibly complicit, signals less a military victory than a systemic humiliation: that of a regime that dreamed of being an anti-imperialist bastion and discovers it cannot protect its own president. The Chavista "tiger" reveals itself to be a paper tiger: strong on slogans, weak in real capacity. Jurists will rightly recall that international law protects the immunity of sitting heads of state, except in very narrowly defined exceptions. But history offers another, less comfortable lesson: from Noriega to the International Criminal Court's warrants against Omar el-Bashir or Vladimir Putin, the boundary between sovereignty and penal responsibility has steadily eroded. Already in 1998, the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in London on the basis of a Spanish warrant inaugurated the era of universal jurisdiction against former leaders. Today, with Maduro, another step is taken: this is no longer a sick ex-dictator on a medical visit, but a sitting president, captured by force and tried abroad for narcoterrorism endangering specifically American citizens. The international reaction underscores the brutality of this epochal shift. A few capitals denounce a "cowboy method" contrary to the UN Charter; others take refuge in cautious verbal indignation, quickly diluted in press releases. But the most striking aspect is elsewhere: many leaders who, just yesterday, posed complacently with Maduro, accepted his decorations, and praised his "Bolivarian courage," suddenly discover they have short memories. The archives are full of these now-embarrassing embraces: they remind us that diplomacy loves grand words, sovereignty, dignity, resistance, as long as they cost nothing. Abdelmadjid Tebboune must today regret his recent insulting remarks toward the powers and others who have explicitly recognized the Moroccanness of the formerly Spanish Sahara. In the Maduro affair, Donald Trump has found his formula: topple a regime without uttering the word "war," capture a president without recognizing him as such. The operation de facto violates the spirit of international law, but it cloaks itself in the language of American criminal law, with its charges, judges, juries, and procedures. In Congress, a few voices raise alarms about the precedent created. However, U.S. political history shows that, when faced with what is defined as a "vital interest", fight against drugs, terrorism, territorial protection—partisan quarrels quickly give way to a reflex of unity. Now, the scene shifts to the New York federal court. Maduro, very wealthy, will be supported by prestigious lawyers, will challenge the legitimacy of the procedure, denounce a political trial, and attempt to turn the courtroom into an anti-imperialist platform. The U.S., for its part, will highlight its fight against a "narco-state" that allegedly flooded their market with cocaine in league with Colombian armed groups and criminal networks. At this stage, it matters little whether judicial truth is fully established: the image of the Venezuelan president in the defendant's cage will weigh more durably than all televised speeches. For part of Latin America and beyond, this arrest elicits real relief: that of seeing a leader accused of authoritarian drift, massive corruption, and collusion with narcotrafficking finally answer before a judge. This sentiment is understandable. But should we stop there? For this episode recalls a disturbing truth: sovereignty, in the current international system, has become conditional. Conditional on the ability to defend oneself, to weave effective alliances, to not cross certain red lines set by others. Conditional, above all, on the narrative that the powerful impose on the rest of the world. The Maduro case must neither make us forget the brutality of his regime, nor mask the precedent it creates. It has provoked the exile of more than 8 million people. That a president suspected of serious crimes be judged, many will applaud it. That a power arrogate to itself the unilateral right to abduct and try him on its soil, without an indisputable international mandate, should worry even its allies. These tools, once created, risk no longer being confined to a single "enemy." Those who reassure themselves today thinking they will never be the target of such practices risk discovering, tomorrow, to their detriment, that the narrative has changed there too. It was the last night of Raiss Maduro...

When Algeria insists on sailing against the tide of history… 1627

Aziz Daouda, 8 d.
- World Politics - History -
3.4 min read.
What, then, has gotten into the Algerian president for him, in his latest speech before Parliament, to choose so resolutely to position himself against the arc of history and current international dynamics? While the United Nations Security Council has, de facto, settled the question of the Moroccan Sahara by endorsing the option of **autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty**, the Algerian head of state continues to repeat the same old talking points: “despoiled Sahrawi people”, “self‑determination referendum”, as if time in Algiers had frozen in the 1980s. In his remarks, international law is invoked… then ignored. The paradox, not to say the inconsistency, is all the more striking as the Algerian president invokes international law while pretending to ignore that it is precisely the Security Council that is one of its main interpreters and norm‑setting bodies. Yet the law has spoken. The successive Security Council resolutions have long since abandoned any reference to a referendum that has become impracticable, unrealistic, and politically obsolete. In its place, a political, pragmatic, and lasting solution has emerged: autonomy for the Sahara within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. This evolution is neither accidental nor circumstantial. It stems from a shared assessment within the international community: the territory of the Sahara is, historically, legally, and politically, an integral part of the Kingdom of Morocco. And in order to take into account Algerian sensitivities, a country that has invested tens of billions of dollars for nearly half a century in this artificial conflict the Security Council has, in a sense, “split the difference” by endorsing broad regional autonomy without calling Moroccan sovereignty into question. It was thought this would offer Algiers an honourable way out. It did not seize it. An isolated Algeria facing a global realignment By persisting in this posture, Algeria is not defying Morocco; it is taunting the major powers. The United States, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, several Central European countries, and many African and Arab states have clearly or implicitly rallied to the Moroccan position. Some state it openly; others, for historical, ideological, or domestic political reasons, move more cautiously. This is the case for Russia and China, which did not vote against the latest Security Council resolution. But all act accordingly: opening consulates in Laayoune and Dakhla, signing economic agreements, making large‑scale investments, and forging strategic partnerships with Rabat. Meanwhile, Algeria is locking itself into a diplomacy of denial, unable to read the real balance of power. At a time when Morocco is establishing itself as an African, Atlantic, and Euro‑Mediterranean hub, Algiers keeps stoking the embers of a conflict that no longer mobilizes anyone other than itself and a few ridiculous residual ideological mouthpieces. A regime from another era, ruling over a suffering population, is at the helm in Algiers. Certain clumsy words used by the president and his facial expressions are in fact open insults directed at many countries and not minor ones, that support Morocco’s position. Even more worrying is the abyssal gap between this ideological discourse and the reality experienced by the Algerian population. The military regime seems to be operating on another planet. The president appears unmoored, disconnected from the daily concerns of a people scarred by repeated shortages: basic foodstuffs, medicines, tyres, essential products. In a country that is nonetheless rich in hydrocarbons, economic and social management borders on the absurd, and the manipulation of statistics has become a national sport. This raises a pressing question: who benefits from this chronic obstinacy? Certainly not Algerians. Above all, it serves to perpetuate a political system that needs an external enemy to mask its repeated domestic failures, justify the army’s grip on power, and distract from a deep‑seated structural crisis. At all costs, the real Algeria must be concealed: the one that is hemmed in at the regional level. The signals on this front are just as troubling. Accused by several Sahel countries of contributing, directly or indirectly, to their destabilization, Algeria is gradually finding itself diplomatically encircled. Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso no longer hide their mistrust toward Algiers. To this we must add the total rupture with Morocco and relations with Spain that are durably strained. Algerian influence in Africa is receding just as the Sherifian Kingdom is consolidating its economic, religious, and security footprint across the continent. What immediate consequences, then? In the medium term, this stance is likely to have serious consequences: - Heightened diplomatic isolation, - Loss of international credibility, - Weakening of Algeria’s voice in multilateral forums, - Worsening of domestic social malaise, - And, paradoxically, a strengthening of the legitimacy of Morocco’s position. History shows that artificial conflicts always end up turning against those who instrumentalize them. By refusing to accept the reality of the Sahara dossier, Algeria is not delaying the solution; it is delaying its own political and regional normalization. It is putting off to the Greek calends its exit from crisis and its development. The Sahara issue is now closed at the strategic level, even if it remains rhetorically open for Algiers. To cling to it is less a matter of conviction than an admission of powerlessness. By stubbornly sailing against the current, the Algerian regime risks finding itself alone, stranded on the shores of a bygone past, while the region moves forward without it. There is, however, one explanation for this hasty and ill‑judged outburst by the Algerian president: the major success of the Africa Cup of Nations in Football held in Morocco. The Kingdom’s success and the overall praise it has received seem to irritate the Algerian regime, which has no answers for its citizens who travelled there and saw with their own eyes the extent, clumsiness, and absurdity of the propaganda inflicted on them by the military regime. Some do not hesitate to conclude that Morocco has taken a 50‑year lead over their country. Be that as it may, official Morocco will certainly not respond to the Algerian president’s remarks. The Kingdom stands on its rights, as recognized by the international community. It continues steadily along its path, developing a little more each day and notching up success after success.

The AFCON, a Lifeline for a Continent in Crisis: Why Quadrennial Rhymes with Abandon... 1983

Aziz Daouda, 10 d.
- World Politics - Sports -
2.3 min read.
Shifting from a biennial to a quadrennial competition starting in 2026, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON), the jewel of the Confederation of African Football (CAF), sees its calendar diluted by the voracious interests of European clubs and a complacent FIFA. These actors, obsessed with immediate profitability, sacrifice continental rebirth, reconciliation, and Pan-African unity in favor of a globalized agenda. For one month, the AFCON offers a welcome respite from the scourges plaguing Africa: civil wars, famines, terrorism, and recurrent economic and political crises. Far from being a mere sporting tournament, it acts as a multidimensional catalyst, sporting, of course, but also economic, festive, and therapeutic for a largely wounded continent. It is a true lifeline for peoples in crisis. Football transcends the pitch to become a vital outlet and a powerful social bond. Here, it serves as an antidote to conflicts and misery, despair, and loss of hope. In developing countries ravaged by violence, national football teams embody hope and unity, turning stadiums into parentheses of normality. In Sudan: The civil war, ongoing since April 2023, has claimed over 20,000 lives and displaced 10 million people, according to the UN. Yet the Red Sea Eagles, third in Group E with 3 points after two matches, proudly carry the colors of an exiled championship, reigniting a collective surge and kindling a glimmer of hope. In Burkina Faso: Hit by an acute food crisis affecting 3 million people and endemic jihadist insecurity, the Stallions, second in Group E with 3 points, only folded against Algeria on a single penalty. Their qualification galvanizes a divided people, offering a rare source of national pride and hope. In Mali: 5 million citizens are impacted by a mosaic of terrorist groups, repeated insurrections, and coups d'état, but this hasn't stopped the Mali Eagles from holding their own against host Morocco. They lead ex aequo with 4 points after two matchdays. The duel imposed on Morocco symbolizes fierce resilience and unyielding pride. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): 8 million displaced in the east flee M23 violence; yet, the Leopards in Group D, alongside Senegal, turn stadiums into cathartic outlets, channeling anger into collective joy. In Zimbabwe: 4.5 million people suffer from chronic health and economic decline; the Warriors, bottom of Group B with 1 point, nonetheless rekindle the pride of a youth facing mass unemployment. Over 80% of those under 25 no longer know what to do with their lives. In Mozambique: 1.1 million displaced in Cabo Delgado flee jihadists; yet the Mambas celebrate a historic 3-2 victory over football powerhouse Gabon, defying adversity. In Nigeria: In the northern BAY states—Borno, Adamawa, Yobe, Boko Haram has weighed heavily for 15 years, displacing millions. The Super Eagles, in Group C with Tunisia, still manage to unite a country fractured by coastal insecurity and endemic ethnic divisions. On the pitch, people even forget that the US just bombed jihadists accused of mistreating the country's Christians. In Cameroon: The Anglophone crisis has displaced 700,000 people; the Indomitable Lions snatch a 1-1 draw against the defending Ivorian champions in Group F, offering an enchanted respite from persistent tensions. In Angola: Bearing the traumatic legacy of a civil war, the country struggles for stability; the Palancas Negras battle valiantly in Group B alongside Egypt, symbolizing fragile reconstruction and optimism. These examples illustrate how the AFCON, through its biennial regularity, acted as a social safety valve, interrupting cycles of despair every two years. Beyond the game and the ball gliding on the pitches, the impact is also economic. The CAF has expanded the finals to 24 teams out of 54 nations, while qualifiers united 30 other countries around shared moments of hope. The 2025 AFCON in Morocco breaks all records: 236,849 spectators in the group stage (versus 197,880 in 2023), with over 1 million tickets already sold. Economic projections are explosive: $192.6 million in revenue; around $126 million in sponsorship, and no less than $19 million in ticketing, while 500,000 to 1 million foreign visitors should boost Morocco's GDP by 12 billion dirhams through tourism, hospitality, and local sponsorship. Historically, the 2023 AFCON in Côte d'Ivoire generated a €2.2 billion economic impact; 2025 could surpass it, strengthening Africa's soft power. The AFCON is watched worldwide. The top-quality offering by Morocco contributes greatly. The world discovers the continent in a new light, one of progress and modernity. Alas, this overlooks the European diktat and a betrayal of Africa's essence. Africans, aware of these stakes, have always advocated for a biennial AFCON, rooted in their reality and meeting their specific needs. How else to justify the switch to quadrennial if not as a European diktat? Clubs have imposed this calendar to limit absences of their African stars to 28 days per year, instead of 40 in AFCON years, preserving their profits and mercantile interests. FIFA, under Infantino's smile, thus sacrifices Africa's humanitarian urgency. Four years of waiting is an eternity for peoples in peril. This choice ignores precedents and real problems, like the Champions League saturating the calendar without regard for minor confederations. The CAF must decide: African football is an irreplaceable social cement, a vital safety valve of hope in Africa. Making the AFCON quadrennial dilutes its Pan-African soul for foreign interests. The legacy of a biennial AFCON must be preserved, so that the round ball can continue healing the continent's wounds. Returning to a two-year cycle is a humanitarian duty that cannot be swept away so lightly. The AFCON, an ephemeral space of African reconciliation every two years, risks fading at the cost of shattered dreams for a youth aspiring to live like others. The AFCON is not just any tournament, far from it.

The Institutionalization of Parallel Diplomacy: A Case for Structural Reorientation 2290

Imad Khater, 12 d.
- World Politics - Society -
1.4 min read.
The Kingdom’s recent diplomatic milestones are far from a static endpoint; they represent the catalyst for a new, almost cellular, momentum in foreign policy. This shifting landscape—further validated by the latest UN Security Council resolution which underscores the primacy of the Moroccan Autonomy Initiative—demands an immediate reassessment of our diplomatic doctrine. We must transition from a posture of "asset management" to one of proactive orchestration, ensuring that multilateral achievements are cemented into an indisputable and permanent political reality. I. Overcoming Institutional Fragmentation: The National Assizes as a Strategic Nexus A fundamental hurdle in our external outreach remains the rationalization of our influence vectors. Historically, the Moroccan voice abroad has occasionally been diluted by a lack of systemic cohesion—patriotic efforts that, unfortunately, operate in isolation. This is where the long-standing advocacy of the Moroccan Center for Parallel Diplomacy and Dialogue of Civilizations takes on its full strategic weight. The call for National Assizes is not a reactionary measure but a vision rooted in long-term strategy. These Assizes are intended to be more than a consultative gathering; they must serve as the foundational act of a "total diplomacy," where the state apparatus and civil society—parliamentarians, scholars, and NGOs—work as an integrated network. This synergy is the only way to saturate the global political discourse with a clarity that meets contemporary UN standards. II. The "Scientization" of Advocacy: Intellectual Rearmament For parallel diplomacy to gain true international gravitas, it must decouple from purely emotional rhetoric and ground itself in a rigorous, conceptual framework. Advocacy in the 21st century, especially within the UN ecosystem, requires a near-surgical precision: Academic Engineering: We must empower experts to produce high-level intellectual capital capable of dismantling adversarial narratives within the world’s most influential think tanks. A Unified Strategic Voice: The objective is to harness diverse voices into a singular, potent diplomatic instrument. Every stakeholder must act as a precise gear in a technically unassailable argument. The Sovereign Directive: Every engagement, no matter how informal, must align with the definitive recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over its Sahara, upholding both the letter and the profound spirit of the Security Council’s mandates. III. Outlook: Embedding a Culture of Performance The current geopolitical alignment offers a unique strategic window. By institutionalizing this diplomatic model, Morocco is doing more than just reacting to global shifts; it is pioneering a sustainable architecture of influence. Ultimately, the mission is to empower every opinion leader as an "architect of influence," carrying the vision of His Majesty the King with the intellectual authority required to align international legal norms with the undeniable facts on the ground.

Moroccan Sahara, Maghreb and Sahel: Russia's Subtle Repositioning Between Interests, Realpolitik, and New Equilibria... 2649

Aziz Daouda, 13 d.
The recent signals sent by Russia on the Moroccan Sahara dossier are neither coincidental nor mere diplomatic wavering. On the contrary, they reflect a pragmatic repositioning, revealing the profound geostrategic recompositions sweeping through the Maghreb and the Sahel, in an international context marked by the war in Ukraine, the relative weakening of the West in Africa, and the emergence of new alliance logics. While Moroccans are occupied with the Africa Cup of Nations, which they aim to deliver as an exceptional edition for their continent, highly interesting developments are unfolding for the region's future. Moscow's refusal to authorize the participation of the Polisario, in its self-proclaimed form of the "RASD," at the latest Russia-Africa meeting constitutes a strong political act, even if it was not formalized by a thunderous official declaration. In the grammar of Russian diplomacy, this type of decision carries a message. By excluding an entity not recognized by the UN and wholly dependent on Algeria, Russia confirms its commitment to the UN framework and its refusal to legitimize fragile or instrumentalized state constructs. The Polisario did not participate in the latest ministerial meeting of the Russia-Africa Forum in Cairo on December 19-20, 2025. Moscow explicitly excluded the Polisario Front and its self-proclaimed "SADR," despite pressures from Algeria and South Africa, reserving the event for UN-recognized sovereign states. This decision aligns with Russia's consistent line, having already barred the Polisario from previous summits in Sochi and Saint Petersburg. This choice is all the more significant as it comes in a context where Moscow seeks to appear as a "responsible" actor in the eyes of African countries, concerned with stability and sovereignty. Russia's abstention at the Security Council during the latest vote on the Moroccan Sahara follows the same logic. Moscow does not explicitly support the Moroccan position but no longer opposes head-on the dossier's evolution toward a realistic political solution. This stance reflects an active neutrality, allowing Russia to preserve its historic and lucrative relations with Algeria while avoiding antagonizing a Moroccan partner that has become central in several African and Mediterranean dossiers. In Russian logic, it is not about choosing a camp but maximizing room for maneuver. Contrary to an ideological reading inherited from the Cold War, the Russo-Moroccan relationship today rests on tangible and growing economic interests, particularly in agriculture and food security with imports of cereals and exports of Moroccan agricultural products, fertilizers and phosphates, energy, as well as logistics and access to African markets. For Moscow, Morocco emerges as a credible African hub, a stable state with extensive economic and diplomatic networks in West Africa and the Sahel. In a context where Russia seeks to offset its Western isolation, Rabat offers a pragmatic entry point to the Atlantic Africa, far from the Sahelian chaos zones. Algeria remains a historic strategic ally of Russia, particularly in the military domain, with Algiers devoting several billion dollars annually to purchasing Russian armaments, making it one of the main clients of the Russian defense industry. But this relationship is now imbalanced: it remains largely one-dimensional, centered on armaments, offers Moscow no economic or logistical relays comparable to those of Morocco in sub-Saharan Africa, and is politically rigidified by a frozen ideological reading of the Saharan dossier. Moreover, Algeria has failed to capitalize diplomatically on its Russian alignment to become a credible and solid structuring actor in the Sahel, contrary to its ambitions. In the current Sahelian context, state collapse, coups d'état, terrorism, presence of mercenaries, and international rivalries, Russia now prioritizes actors capable of providing islands of stability. Morocco, through its pragmatic African policy, investments, religious and security diplomacy, appears as a balancing factor, whereas Algeria is perceived as a blocking actor on certain regional dossiers. Sahel countries no longer hesitate to openly say that Algeria is the cause of their misfortune... In this reading, the Western Sahara issue is no longer an ideological stake but a parameter of regional stability; Moscow seems to have understood that perpetuating the conflict status quo serves instability more than its own strategic interests in Africa. Contrary to a widespread idea, Russia no longer reasons in terms of "fraternal" alliances inherited from the past but in cost-benefit terms, the era of automatic support for so-called "revolutionary" movements being over. Russia is a signatory to agreements with Morocco that include the Sahara, particularly in fisheries. The Saharan dossier perfectly illustrates this shift: no recognition of the Polisario, no frontal opposition to Morocco, maintenance of ties with Algeria without granting it a diplomatic blank check. On the contrary, it confines it to a rather small-player dimension, not having helped it join the BRICS at all, quite the opposite. For the Algerian president, membership was a done deal. He received a real slap in the face, and in South Africa no less. The BRICS refused his country's accession. Russia's recent positions on Western Sahara do not constitute a spectacular rupture but a silent turning point, with steady steps, revealing a new Maghrebi-Sahelian balance. In this multi-level game, Morocco consolidates its status as a central and reliable African actor, while Algeria remains for Russia an important military partner but politically constrained. Supported by a weakened country and a regime on its deathbed, the Polisario is sinking into progressive diplomatic marginalization. It is living its last moments. True to its tradition as a realist power, Russia adjusts its positions not based on slogans but on the real dynamics of the ground, where stability, regional integration, enduring and solid economic interests, and diplomatic credibility now outweigh past ideological loyalties. It is now necessary to accept what Russia has become, it is no longer the Soviet Union. Algiers has the intellectual capacity to do so.

Moroccans and Algerians: brothers in history probably, political enemies certainly. 3367

Aziz Daouda, 16 d.
The question of whether Moroccans and Algerians are brothers recurs recurrently, often laden with emotion, rarely addressed with the historical depth and political lucidity it deserves. The slogan conceals a complex reality, marked by anthropological and civilizational unity, but also by successive ruptures, some ancient, others more recent, largely imposed by external dominations and then by post-independence political choices. At the origin, human and civilizational unity is undeniable. On historical, anthropological, and cultural levels, there is little doubt that North Africa long constituted **a single continuous human space**. The great Berber confederations: Sanhaja, Zenata, Masmouda; Islamic contributions; networks of religious brotherhoods; trade routes; and Moroccan dynasties Almoravid, Almohad, Marinid, Saadian structured an **organic Maghreb**, without rigid borders. Belongings were tribal, religious, spiritual, or dynastic. The circulation of people, ideas, and elites was constant. **Moroccans and Algerians clearly shared the same civilizational foundation**. Then came the Ottoman parenthesis and a first structural divergence. From the 16th century onward, a **major differentiation** emerged between the western shores of the Maghreb. While Morocco remained a sovereign state, structured around a rooted Sharifian monarchy, Algeria fell under **Ottoman domination**, integrated as a peripheral regency of the Empire, a domination that lasted nearly three centuries and was far from neutral. It introduced: * an **exogenous power**, military and urban, detached from the interior tribal world; * a hierarchical system dominated by a politico-military caste: Janissaries, deys, beys, often of non-local origin; * a social organization marked by a clear separation between rulers and ruled, without true political integration of the populations. This Ottoman model, more based on coercion than allegiance, contrasted deeply with the Moroccan model, where central power rested on **bay‘a**, religious legitimacy, and indigenous dynastic continuity. Without “denaturing” the populations in the biological sense, this long Ottoman period **altered relationships to the state, authority, and sovereignty**, and gradually distanced, on cultural and political levels, the societies of western Algeria from those of Morocco. Then came French colonization and institutionalized separation. French colonization of Algeria (1830–1962) introduced an even deeper rupture. Paris methodically worked to **tear Algeria from its natural Maghrebi environment**, transforming it into a settler colony, then into French departments. Borders were unilaterally redrawn to Morocco's detriment, and an Algerian identity was progressively constructed **in opposition to its western neighbor**, portrayed as archaic. This is a direct legacy of French colonial software. Yet, despite this separation enterprise, fraternity between the peoples endured. Morocco hosted, supported, and armed FLN fighters; thousands of Moroccans participated in the liberation war; the late HM Mohammed V committed the kingdom's prestige and resources to Algerian independence. At that precise moment, fraternity was neither a myth nor rhetoric: it was **a concrete historical fact**. At Algerian independence, an unexpected political rupture was embraced. Paradoxically, it was **after 1962**, once Algeria was independent, that the fracture became enduring. The power emerging from the Army of the Frontiers reneged on agreements concluded with the GPRA regarding colonial-inherited borders. The **1963 Sand War**, launched against a weakened but previously supportive Morocco, became a founding trauma. From then on, hostility became structural: * Direct support for Moroccan opponents and putschists; * Political, diplomatic, military, and financial backing for Polisario separatists; * Relentless media campaigns against Morocco and its monarchy; * Repeated interferences in Morocco's sovereign choices, including its international alliances, notably with Israel; * Heavy accusations, often raised in Algerian public debate; * Destabilization operations, including the 1994 Asni Hotel attack in Marrakech; * Instrumentalization of Algerian school education, where Morocco is portrayed as a “colonialist” state; * Brutal deportation of 45,000 Moroccans from Algeria; * Sabotage of rapprochement attempts, including under President Mohamed Boudiaf, whose assassination, while he was initiating dialogue with Rabat, remains shrouded in shadows. More recently, the case of **Boualem Sansal**, imprisoned for expressing historically inconvenient truths challenging the official narrative, illustrates the Algerian regime's inability to accept a free and serene reading of Maghrebi history. Thus, two irreconcilable national trajectories. To this political hostility is added a profound divergence in national trajectories. Morocco, not without criticisms, has pursued gradual transformation: institutional reforms, pluralism, major infrastructure projects, African integration, economic and diplomatic diversification. In contrast, Algeria remains trapped in a **militaro-security system inherited from both Ottoman logic and the liberation war**, centralized, distrustful of society, dependent on energy rents, and structurally hostile to any regional success perceived as competitive. This asymmetry fuels frustration and resentment, where Morocco becomes a **useful ideological adversary, the classic enemy**. So, brothers or not? The answer is nuanced, but unambiguous. **Moroccans and Algerians are brothers through long history, deep culture, geography, and human ties.** They were for centuries, before Ottoman domination, before French colonization, and perhaps remain so at the level of the peoples. But **they no longer are at the level of the states**, due to a deliberate political choice by the Algerian regime since independence: to build its legitimacy on external hostility, particularly toward Morocco. Fraternity has not disappeared; it has been **progressively altered, then confiscated** by imperial, colonial, and postcolonial history. It persists in popular memory, in separated families, in the painful silence of closed borders. History, unbiased by passion or ideology, delivers the verdict—and the 35th CAN contributes to it: **the peoples are brothers; the Algerian regime has decided otherwise**.

2030 World Cup: Toward a Framework Law for Sports Events in Morocco—The Art of Transforming the Exceptional into a Lasting Legacy 3751

Imad Khater, 20 d.
The awarding of the 2030 World Cup to the Morocco-Spain-Portugal triumvirate must no longer be seen as a mere celebration of global football, but as a convergence of shared sovereignties. For the first time, history is doing more than just bridging two shores; it is mandating the construction of an integrated legal and economic space that defies the traditional boundaries of event organization. This project transcends fleeting logistical cooperation; it demands the birth of a true Laboratory for Institutional Modernity. Beyond the colossal investment exceeding 50 billion dirhams, the fundamental challenge lies in the Kingdom's ability to erect an exceptional normative framework. The goal is no longer simply to host, but to anticipate: how can the imperative of convergence be transformed into a lasting legislative legacy? Caught between the structural influence of international standards and the need for a strong Euro-African anchor, Morocco stands before a "fertile wall": the invention of "event law" which—much like the shifts seen for the Paris 2024 Olympics—will make 2030 the foundation of a new global development model. I. The Framework Law: Moving Beyond Management Toward Accelerated Execution The announcement of this tripartite bid has elevated the need for harmonized coordination in logistics, economics, and security to a strategic imperative. The current framework, dominated by Law 30-09, cannot alone bear the weight of an event expected to welcome over 1.5 million supporters. The French Mirror: For the Paris 2024 Olympics, France adopted exceptional legislation as early as 2018 to reduce administrative appeal periods for Olympic construction sites by 25%. The Convergence Imperative: The World Cup deadline acts as a powerful lever, forcing the acceleration of regulatory and customs convergence between the three capitals. Special Legal Status: The Kingdom must establish a "derogatory regime" for its strategic construction zones, transforming administrative constraints into operational fluidity. II. The "Legacy" Doctrine: Legal Engineering Against "White Elephants" The overall efficiency of the operation—from the pre-event phase to the post-event legacy—rests entirely on the solidity of this triangular commitment. Mutualization and Interoperability: Trilateral agreements directly influence planning: it is no longer about building isolated infrastructure, but integrated networks (ports, air, and rail links) designed for seamless interoperability. The SOLIDEO Model: Following the French structural model, Morocco must ensure that infrastructure transformation is driven by normative alignment to guarantee future social utility. Optimizing Returns: Harmonizing tourism offerings and incentive-based tax regimes for investors is crucial to maximizing shared economic benefits. III. Sovereignty and Cybersecurity: The New Digital Battlefield An event of this magnitude, managed by three sovereign states, creates coordination challenges that require top-tier diplomatic and technical management. Unified Security Space: Creating a unified security space requires real-time information sharing and seamless law enforcement coordination between the three nations. The Transcontinental Mobility Challenge: Moving supporters between Europe and Africa must be fluid, reliable, and eco-friendly, requiring massive investment in airport capacity. Sovereignty and Image: The challenge is to present an ideal model of intercultural coexistence while shielding critical systems against rising cyber threats. Conclusion: Toward a New Standard of Power The 2030 World Cup is not merely the sum of three national organizations; it is a project of strategic co-development. By anchoring this exceptional event in legal sustainability, Morocco has the opportunity to transform this bid into a historic precedent for successful integration between two continents.

Emerging African Power or Missed Opportunity: Lomé 2025 Between Historic Pivot and Strategic Shipwreck... 3836

Aziz Daouda, 21 d.
- World Politics - Politics -
2.3 min read.
In Lomé, from December 8 to 12, 2025, the 9th Pan-African Congress transcended its usual commemorative rituals to become a strategic headquarters. Or at least, it tried to. Governments, intellectuals, business leaders, diasporas, and activists hammered home a merciless diagnosis: in a world fractured by hybrid wars, broken supply chains, and declining or repositioning empires, Africa can no longer settle for mere survival. It must impose a doctrine of collective power, or perish as a playground for giants. Gone are the days of lyrical discourse panafricanism and ideological jousts. The shift has been made from symbol to sword, with panafricanism as a geopolitical weapon. In Lomé, Faure Gnassingbé, the Togolese president and host, set the tone from the outset: African unity is no longer a moral utopia, but a shield against predators. Facing a China that locks down cobalt mines, Russia and Sahel issues, and the United States dictating vague norms, Africa chooses rupture. Gnassingbé said it bluntly: without coordination, the continent remains prey; with it, it becomes a pivot. The debates dissected fragmentation, focusing on crises in the Sahel, tensions in Sudan, and piracy in Somalia. The alternative is binary: vassalization or collective sovereignty. Lomé thus lays the groundwork for a defensive alliance, possibly inspired by the BRICS, to counter voracious interferences. No one hesitated to declare that multilateralism is crumbling to shreds. Africa, at least in discourse, is thus storming the fortresses. Ministers sounded the alarm: the UN, IMF, and WTO under-represent Africa, the true demographic bastion that will boast 2.5 billion people by 2050 and an indispensable energy sanctuary with its sun, lithium, and green hydrogen. The continent is asking the fundamental question: why hand over the reins to institutions frozen in the post-1945 era? Thus, in Lomé, the Congress forced itself to outline an offensive roadmap with crystal-clear ideas: - Diplomatic coordination and a united front at the UN to block biased resolutions. - The need for institutional reforms, demanding two permanent seats on the Security Council and veto rights. - Sovereign voice through aligning regional votes, notably at the AU and ECOWAS, on common interests rather than national whims or outdated ideological aims. The stakes are to redefine the rules of the game. Africa is no longer content with folding seats. It wants to influence global trade, sanctions, and climate norms, where it foots the bill without reaping the benefits. The diaspora, as the secret weapon of an Afro-global geopolitics from Bogotá to São Paulo, stole the show in Lomé. Francia Márquez, Colombia's vice-president, reminded attendees of the 200 million Afro-descendants in the Americas: a strategic depth ignored for too long. South-South alliances, reparations as diplomatic weapons against post-colonial Europe, and capital flows via the US diaspora are assets and pathways for a radical posture shift. Lomé thus expands panafricanism to include the diaspora as a lobby in Washington and Brussels, a vector for tech (AI, fintech) and cultural soft power. Against China's Belt and Road, a transnational African counter-network is taking shape. Regional pre-congresses had already proposed a clear, concrete action plan: - Technological independence: Mastering artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing to end Western domination. - Pan-African elites by reforming education to train African leaders and strategists, not those who flee the continent. - Controlled migration: Implementing a continent-wide common policy to turn population movements into a demographic asset, rather than suffering Europe's barriers. - Active memory: Linking slavery and colonialism to concrete economic demands, like canceling unjust debts and paying royalties on mineral resources. In essence, axes of power for 2030 based on technology, education, and migration. Africa is shifting from reaction to projection, anticipating a multipolar world where it rivals India or ASEAN. But as always in Africa, it's legitimate to ask the fundamental question: Lomé, pivot or mirage? The hope is that this congress is not a flash in the pan but rather a sketch—a doctrine for power through unity, influence, and coordination. The devil is in the execution. Will internal and regional rivalries, and bellicose temptations, continue to divide? The Greater Maghreb, for our part, has known this story for 50 years. Lomé 2025 issues an ultimatum: shared strategy or eternal irrelevance? Africa, emerging pole or sacrificed pawn? The answer is playing out now and concerns upcoming African generations... They will never forgive our current mistakes and foolish divisions...

A Historical Triptych: How Morocco, Spain, and Portugal are Forging the Success of the 2030 World Cup 4724

Imad Khater, 27 d.
The assignment of the 2030 FIFA World Cup hosting rights to the unprecedented trio of Morocco, Portugal, and Spain marks the opening of a new chapter in the history of international and sporting relations. The joint organization of this event confirms an unparalleled dynamic, engaging the three nations in a triangular cooperation whose efficiency will be the decisive marker of this global event's success. This trilateral partnership transcends mere logistical collaboration to become a true lever for strategic development. The question is no longer whether bilateral relations are ready, but how their integration into a strengthened trilateral framework will guarantee the success of a mega-event poised to connect, for the first time, two continents through the medium of sport. Historical ties and geographical proximity provide a fertile ground for a remarkable intensification of relations between these three partners. The announcement of their tripartite bid has, in fact, elevated the need for harmonized coordination in the logistical, economic, and security domains to the level of a strategic imperative. I. The Political and Economic Foundations of Enhanced Cooperation The alignment around the 2030 project is not fortuitous; it is rooted in deep political and economic considerations that mutualize the interests of the three countries. •⁠ ⁠The Imperative of Convergence suffers no ambivalence: Spain and Portugal, while operating within the structural framework of the European Union, recognize Morocco as an essential strategic partner, a genuine gateway and pivot to the African continent. This dynamic is not unilateral; the Kingdom is consolidating its Euro-African anchor with heightened clarity through this same alliance. The World Cup deadline, far from being a simple calendar constraint, acts as a powerful lever, forcing the acceleration—often judged too slow—of regulatory, customs, and security convergence processes among the three capitals. Crucially, the political will displayed at the highest level—symbolized by the direct monitoring of Moroccan commitments by His Majesty King Mohammed VI—stands as a decisive catalyst, ensuring the establishment of a unified and enduring policy line, even in the face of contingencies and fluctuations in political majorities within the allied states. •⁠ ⁠Mutualization of Investments and Benefits: On the economic front, the World Cup represents an unprecedented opportunity to boost trade and investment. The trilateral agreements directly influence the planning of major works: the goal is no longer to build isolated infrastructures, but integrated networks (ports, air links, potential high-speed rail connections) designed for interoperability. The harmonization of tourism offerings and incentivizing fiscal regimes for sponsors and investors is crucial to maximize shared benefits. The success of coordination in the logistical, economic, and security domains will not be merely a performance indicator; it will be the symbol of a collective capacity to manage a complex event on a transcontinental scale. II. Managing Complexities: The Challenges of Co-Development An event of this magnitude, operated by three sovereign states, naturally generates frictions and coordination challenges that require first-rate diplomatic and technical management. •⁠ ⁠The Challenge of Global Security and Integrated Transport: The primary obstacle is the creation of a unified security space for the millions of supporters on the move. This demands real-time information sharing, coordination of law enforcement agencies, and the harmonization of emergency protocols. Concurrently, the transport system must be conceived as a single network. The transit of teams and supporters between Europe and Africa must be fluid, reliable, and ecological, necessitating targeted investments in airport capacity and maritime services. •⁠ ⁠The Cultural and Civilizational Vector: Beyond sport, the World Cup is a diplomatic platform. The secondary, but fundamental, challenge is to move beyond simple technical organization to present an ideal model of intercultural coexistence. Morocco, Spain, and Portugal must invest in promoting their cross-cultural heritages, consolidating the values of peace and mutual respect. This involves qualifying national institutions not only in logistics but also in public management and global media interaction, to avoid the pitfalls of fragmented or sensationalist coverage. III. The Structuring Influence of Bilateral Agreements on Logistics The influence of existing agreements between the three countries is vital for infrastructure development. The current stage is characterized by high anticipation from the private sectors and sports observers, who are watching for the concrete acceleration of construction projects. The overall efficiency of the operation—whether considering the pre-event phase, execution during the tournament, or the post-realization legacy—rests entirely on the solidity of the triangular commitment. The transformation of infrastructures, from stadiums to training centers and reception areas, must be carried out in a spirit of normative alignment. In conclusion, the 2030 World Cup is not merely the sum of three national organizations; it is a project of strategic co-development. The strong historical relations uniting the Kingdom of Morocco, Portugal, and Spain, amplified by a constant and high-level political will, constitute the decisive element for transforming this bid into a resounding success, offering the world a precedent of successful integration between two shores.

The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (CAN) vs FIFA: Should Africa Always Settle for a Secondary Role? 4975

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
Just days before the kickoff of la CAN 2025 au Maroc, a FIFA decision reignites an old debate: the real consideration given to African competitions within the global football structure. By reducing the mandatory release period for African players by European clubs to à cinq jours seulement, the world football governing body again seems to favor those same clubs… to the detriment of African national teams. This measure, seemingly technical at first glance, speaks volumes about the implicit hierarchy in world football and the true place FIFA continues to reserve for the African continent. How can a major competition like la CAN, a flagship event in African football, watched by hundreds of millions, and an important economic, social, and political driver in the region, be seriously prepared with only cinq jours de rassemblement? No team, anywhere in the world or on any continent, can build tactical cohesion, assimilate game plans, develop automatisms, or even physically recover in such a short time. It is therefore legitimate to ask: - Is this a rational measure? - Or a decision that trivializes la CAN, as if this competition deserves neither respect nor optimal conditions? - Or could it be structural discrimination against Africa? But the fundamental question remains the same. It is not new: is world football truly equal? The decision on player release is only the visible part of a larger system, where les compétitions et les équipes africaines are structurally disadvantaged. Take FIFA rankings as an example, which determine the pot placements for major competition draws. Points depend on the level of opponents faced. A team playing mainly in Africa will mechanically face lower-ranked teams, thus earning fewer points, even when winning. Conversely, a European team, with higher-ranked opponents, gains more points even with similar results. This system maintains a cercle fermé: the best ranked stay at the top, the lower ones remain stuck at the bottom. Where then is the promised meritocracy? The ranking openly dictates the World Cup path. The recent decision to guarantee that the quatre meilleures équipes mondiales do not meet before the 2026 World Cup semi-finals is a major turning point. This means the already biased ranking now plays a crucial role in the very structure of the competition. We have even seen the draw master, probably connected by earpiece to a decision-maker, place teams in groups without explaining why… This openly protects the giants and locks others into a calculated destiny. It is a logic of preserving the powerful, typical of a system where sport, apparently universal, bows to economic and media imperatives of major markets. This raises the question: is FIFA an institution funded… by those it marginalizes? A paradox emerges: - States, especially in developing countries, are the primary investors in football: infrastructure, academies, stadiums, subsidies, competitions. La CAN est une affaire de ces États. - National football, notably the World Cup between nations, is FIFA’s most lucrative product. - The emotion, history, and prestige of football largely come from the nations, not clubs. - Yet, it is les clubs européens, entités privées ou associations who seem to dictate the conditions. African federations, essential contributors of the global talent pool, players, skills, audiences, and emerging markets, find their room to maneuver much reduced. Is Africa highly valued as a supplier of talents, but not as a decision-making actor? This situation echoes a well-known pattern on the continent: Produce raw material, but let value-added happen elsewhere. In football as in the global economy, Africa trains, supplies, feeds, but often remains spectator when it comes to governance, revenues, interests, or influence. Instead of being seen as a strategic pillar of the global calendar, La CAN is treated as a logistical complication, even though a continental competition cannot progress if constantly relegated to second place. Football in certain regions only advances through regional and continental competitions. These form objectives for most teams and are sometimes the only visibility opportunity for some nations. Again, this raises the question: is world football truly democratized? FIFA presents itself as an inclusive house, guarantor of equity, solidarity, and development. In theory, yes. In practice, the scales tip heavily to one side. Recent decisions reveal an organization focused on protecting the immediate interests of football’s economic powers, mainly in Europe, to the detriment of sporting fairness. So, should we keep pretending? Should Africa be content to applaud, stay silent, and provide its players like a product in the global market? Isn’t the time ripe for une affirmation africaine? The 2025 CAN, organized in Morocco, with all the effort and resources invested, could become a turning point. Morocco’s dedication deserves respect. It demonstrates that the continent has the means, modern infrastructure, massive audiences, and world-class talent, but lacks recognition and du poids dans les décisions. It is time that FIFA treats African competitions with the respect they deserve. Not out of charity or rhetoric, but out of justice, coherence, and because world football cannot continue ignoring a continent that remains one of its main human and cultural engines. Africa is undoubtedly proud to be part of FIFA, but the strapontin no longer suits it. Africans themselves no longer tolerate the contempt.

FIFA World Cup 2026: risk of a tournament reserved for the wealthiest? An unprecedented inflation... 4610

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
The 2026 World Cup, jointly organized by the **États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique**, promises to be an extraordinary event: an expanded format with 48 teams, 104 matches, state-of-the-art facilities, and what is expected to be the most massive media coverage in sports history. However, as initial details about ticketing and logistical costs emerge, growing concern is palpable among fans: **the North American World Cup could become the most expensive World Cup ever organized**, to the point of calling into question the very accessibility of the event. At the heart of this concern is the American model of *dynamic pricing*, a system where prices are never fixed. They fluctuate according to demand, the volume of online requests, the status of the match, and even algorithmic parameters beyond the consumer’s control. For example, a hotel room normally priced around 200 USD might not be offered for less than 500 or even 600 USD, probably more for late bookers. This mechanism, common in American professional sports, could turn World Cup ticket purchases into a frenzied and even unfair race. Some final tickets are already priced between $5,000 and $20,000, a completely unprecedented level. Group stage tickets could see daily price swings, making financial planning nearly impossible for foreign fans. American supporters, already used to high prices in the NBA, NFL, or MLB, seem better equipped to navigate this system. Conversely, for Moroccan, Brazilian, Senegalese, Egyptian, or Indonesian fans, this model represents an almost insurmountable barrier. Adding to this cloudy scenario is the question of the official resale platform: **FIFA Official Ticket Resale Platform**. Ideally, it prevents black-market sales and secures transactions. But in a market dominated by speculative logic, it could become a playground for actors seeking to maximize profits, especially since FIFA takes a commission. FIFA has not yet communicated safeguards it plans to implement. Without strict regulation, resale could amplify price volatility, particularly for highly sought-after matches: final rounds, games involving teams with strong diasporas, as well as the opening match and final. One of the most puzzling aspects of this World Cup is the early sale of tickets without specific match assignments. In the USA, out of the **6 millions de billets prévus**, nearly **2 millions ont déjà trouvé preneur**, while buyers do not yet know which matches they paid for. This reflects several dynamics: - Total confidence from the American public in the event's organization; - The high purchasing power of an audience willing to invest heavily in sports experiences; - A structural asymmetry between American supporters and international fans, the latter compelled to wait for match assignments to plan trips and budgets. This situation fuels fears that stadiums will be largely filled with local spectators, to the detriment of fans supporting their teams from abroad. The USA ranks among the world’s most expensive hotel markets, and the selected cities are no exception: **New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, Dallas ou encore San Francisco** regularly top lists of the priciest destinations. A genuine inflation is expected across the hotel sector. During major sporting events, room prices can double or triple. For a month-long World Cup, projections are even more alarming: some operators are already talking about "prices never seen before." Fans should expect: - Massive hikes in hotel prices; - Predictable saturation of alternative accommodations; - Very high internal transport costs, since distances between host cities often require air travel. All these factors raise a central question: who will the 2026 World Cup really serve? The 250 million registered football players worldwide may feel somewhat frustrated. Their sport is slipping away. The North American model, dominated by commercial logic and speculative mechanisms, seems incompatible with football’s tradition as a popular sport. We might witness the emergence of a two-speed World Cup: - A premium World Cup, largely attended by North American audiences and wealthier supporters; - A remote World Cup for millions of international fans who must content themselves with televised broadcasts due to insufficient means to attend. For supporters from countries where median income is far lower than in the United States, be they African, Latin American, Asian, or even European nations, the experience could become inaccessible. FIFA clearly faces a strategic dilemma. Sooner or later, it will have to address this issue. Certainly, the choice of the United States guarantees top-level infrastructure, record revenues, a colossal advertising market, and a logistics organization of rare reliability. But this financial logic could directly contradict football’s social and symbolic mission: to bring people together, unite, and include. If the 2026 World Cup turns into an elitist event, it risks leaving a lasting negative impression in public opinion. Modern football, already criticized for its commercial drift, could face increased pushback from fans—the very fans who keep the sport alive—especially as FIFA’s revenues rise from $7.5 billion to $13 billion. The World Cup is thus under tension. In 2026, it will likely be spectacular both sportingly and organizationally. But it could also mark a turning point in World Cup history: when the event stops being a popular and accessible gathering and turns into a premium product for a privileged audience. Between ticket inflation, skyrocketing hotel prices, logistical distances, and the American economic model, the real risk exists that this edition will go down as the most exclusive, most expensive, and least accessible. FIFA, the organizers, and host cities will have to find ways to mitigate this dynamic to preserve football’s very essence: a universal sport that belongs to everyone. Could the proximity between Gianni Infantino and Donald Trump, even their friendship, help in any way?

Guterres snubs Attaf in Luanda: the UN breaks with Algeria's rudeness on the Sahara... 4100

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
At the Africa-Europe summit held in Luanda, a filmed and widely shared incident spotlighted a deep diplomatic tension involving António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, and Ahmed Attaf, Algerian Foreign Minister. A video of the moment went viral on social media, sparking intense debate and mockery. Guterres abruptly gave a formal but cold greeting before swiftly turning his back on Attaf, who was desperately trying to engage with him. This was not a mere protocol slip but a deliberate gesture symbolizing a conflict-laden, annoyed relationship between the UN and Algeria. At such a high diplomatic level, gestures are never accidental or improvised. Nearing the end of his term, Guterres has little patience left for certain behaviors, including those of an insistent and exhausting minister from a country repeatedly harassing the institution. Politically, this public refusal to engage cannot be seen as an accident. It expresses explicit exasperation with Algeria’s stance and likely reflects Attaf's failure to secure a meeting with the Secretary-General. The context is heavy: the Moroccan Sahara issue fuels tension with Algeria pursuing an aggressive, systematic strategy challenging UN reports and resolutions, accusing the UN of bias. Algeria claims neutrality, but this masks the reality that it has sustained and intensified the conflict for half a century, along with Gaddafi’s Libya. Official Algerian media frequently criticize the UN with diplomatic invective, targeting countries and leaders who recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Attacking Israel and Zionism is also a recurring theme, all to bolster Algerian national pride amid economic hardships. This unprecedented political rudeness damages Algeria’s international image. Algerian representative Amar Bendjama’s disdainful and disrespectful comments after the UN Security Council Resolution 2797 vote illustrate this climate. The ongoing tensions have led to a diplomatic deadlock for Algeria, which desperately pressures the UN publically, breaking traditional diplomatic norms. Guterres’s gesture sends a clear political rejection of Algeria's destabilizing posture, a "enough is enough" message that may go unheeded given Algeria’s stubbornness. The episode reveals the limits of informal diplomacy when faced with an aggressive actor and underscores the growing irritation within the UN regarding the Sahara dossier. Major powers now publicly refuse to tolerate Algeria’s antics, having long endured them in hopes of Algerian realizations. Geopolitical stakes in the Mediterranean and Africa are too high for the international community to continue tolerating Algeria’s regional destabilization doctrine. Algeria has only succeeded in creating the new terminology "Western Sahara," which has reignited the question of the "Eastern Sahara." Increasingly, young people provide historical proof of Morocco’s sovereignty over the territories previously linked to colonial France. This incident symbolizes a symbolic rupture in Algeria-UN relations, exacerbated by the recent UN resolution explicitly naming the parties to the Sahara dispute: Algeria, its proxy Polisario Front, Mauritania, and Morocco. The only solution on the agenda is autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, hard for Algeria to accept. Even at the recent G20 summit hosted by South Africa, a known Algerian ally, no word was uttered on the Moroccan Sahara. This confrontation at such a high-profile summit illustrates Algeria’s waning political influence in multilateral forums while Morocco strengthens its regional and global diplomatic standing.

Soccer World Cup 2026: Africa Asserts Itself, the Maghreb Competes, Morocco Confirms... 3770

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Mondial 2026 : Africa asserts itself, the Maghreb competes, Morocco confirms... La Coupe du Monde 2026, jointly organized by the États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique, marks a historic turning point with 48 teams, an unprecedented format, and qualifiers spread over several months, in a football world undergoing rapid change. Beyond technical innovations, a genuine recomposition géopolitique is taking place. Football has become, more than ever, a space where national ambitions, regional strategies, and symbolic rivalries are asserted. In this new chessboard, l’Afrique, and more specifically the Maghreb, occupies a central place. With 9 qualified nations, Africa demonstrates its organization, while the Maghreb asserts itself as the major pole of African football and one of the serious contenders worldwide through Morocco. The list of qualified teams — Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Ghana, Cape Verde, South Africa, Ivory Coast, and Senegal — offers few surprises except the notable absence of Cameroon and Nigeria. Le Maroc remains the strategic showcase of an assumed national and African soft power. Qualified with ease, the Kingdom confirms a momentum started over a decade ago: high-level infrastructure, planning, policy supported by stable governance, diplomatic projection through football, and successful valorization of the diaspora as a technical and strategic force. Morocco today is a pivot continental, endowed with a global and sustainable strategy: CAN 2025, candidacy for 2030, Coupe du Monde des U17 féminines, increased presence in football governing bodies. Its qualification for Mondial 2026 is not an isolated event but the culmination of a coherent and assumed influence policy. On the other hand, L’Algérie savors its return while painfully feeling the repetitive successes of its Moroccan neighbor. Algerian media, often clumsy, offer questionable explanations for their failures, even invoking conspiracy, supposed Moroccan dominance over CAF, or other more fanciful causes. Having missed Mondial 2022 under harsh circumstances, Algeria approaches this cycle with urgency and pride, trying to restore its international visibility and break out of isolation. Qualifying represents a true marqueur de crédibilité régionale, at a time when the region is experiencing deep political reshuffles. Here, football promotes both national cohesion, currently weakened by recurring supply crises and international credibility deficit, and symbolic competition between neighbors. As for La Tunisie, plagued by political difficulties, it seeks stability through football, betting on consistency as strategy. Structured training, competitive diaspora, effective technical management; Tunisian qualification fits a continuity logic. The country lacks Morocco’s geopolitical projection or Algeria’s scale but holds this precious asset: durabilité. L’Égypte, a demographic and historical giant, makes a strong comeback after several frustrating absences. For Cairo, this qualification is much more than a sporting feat: it is a prestige stratégique, crucial as the country seeks to restore its international image and stabilize its internal scene. With its demographic weight and football culture, Egypt regains the global visibility it considers natural. The joint presence of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt signals a réalignement régional. This bloc, with nearly 200 millions d’habitants, shares geopolitical realities without forming a complementary whole; rather, it is an intra-regional influence battle. Each country projects its image through football: - Morocco through its policy, infrastructure, organization, planning, and powerful sports diplomacy. - Algeria cultivating national prestige and popular symbolism. - Egypt with its demographic weight and cultural influence on the Arab world. - Tunisia through consistency and technical skills. All actually compete for African leadership, football becoming the mirror of their political ambitions: - Who represents Africa at the FIFA? - Who leads the transformation of continental football? - Who sets standards in training and infrastructure? Morocco seems to take an indisputable lead, but Algeria and Egypt remain competitors in this symbolic struggle. National models differ clearly: - Morocco: centralized, planned, long-term vision. - Algeria: emotional, popular, volatile but powerful. - Egypt: massive, institutional, historic. - Tunisia: discreet, stable, technical. Together they now form a zone footballistique cohérente, whose importance on the global stage is unprecedented. Attention now turns to the March playoffs, true theaters of uncertainty and continental stakes. They will offer the last tickets. Their scope goes beyond football: each ticket opens a space for national narrative where sport becomes an identity mirror. Le Mondial 2026 is resolutely geopolitical, and the Maghreb y pèse lourd. For the first time, the region appears both as a concrete bloc and a space of internal rivalries. Four qualified nations in a context where: - Africa gains importance. - FIFA adapts to a multipolar world amid global redefinition. - States use football as a diplomatic instrument. - The Maghreb, in its diversity and division, becomes one of the most dynamic regions of football. This North American tournament will showcase much more than teams: it will expose visions, national narratives, historical rivalries, and regional strategies. A genuine geopolitical battlefield. In this global context, the Royaume du Maroc is no longer a mere bystander: it asserts itself as a central actor, arousing jealousies and fierce rivalries...

Dakhla Atlantique when Morocco brings the desert back to life and opens the doors to an ambitious Africa... 4091

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
There are projects that go beyond mere infrastructure. Projects that become symbols, messages addressed to Histoire et au monde. The port of Dakhla Atlantique belongs to this rare category: that of achievements that rewrite the destiny of a nation, and sometimes even a continent. A category embodying the ambition of a sovereign resolutely African, philosophically globalist, genetically Moroccan, fundamentally humanist. In the extreme south of the Kingdom of Mohammed VI, where old maps showed only a desert strip battered by the winds, once occupied by Spain which saw there only a symbol of its colonial power, Morocco chose to build the future by reconnecting with its roots and deep DNA. Where colonial imagination spoke of an empty space, a "terre sans âme", Moroccans, inspired by their adored sovereign, saw an opportunity, a horizon, a future. The Moroccan Sahara is not a margin: it is a matrix. A source of inspiration, as it was for Saint-Exupéry, this poet-pilot who found there the birth of the Petit Prince. Today, this Petit Prince has grown up. He has become Moroccan and claims it. He comes to life under the features of a modern, bold, innovative Morocco. He builds, connects, heals. He plants in the sand the seeds of a sustainable future. He gave it a name and a symbol: Dakhla Atlantique, l’ambition portée par l’océan qui caresse la côte et embrasse tout un peuple toujours debout : le peuple marocain drapé de fierté et d'honneur. By building the port of Dakhla Atlantique, with national know-how and the strength of its youth, Morocco asserts that its Sahara is not a periphery but a crossroads. A strategic anchor point between: Here is the translation of the phrases you requested, with the source-language phrases highlighted inside the markdown constructs as required: ** West Africa in full transformation, ** the Americas, from North to South," ** and neighboring Europe, an indispensable historic and commercial partner. The Kingdom does not only look toward the open sea: it reaches out toward the interior of the continent. The port then becomes a tool of désenclavement du Sahel, a vital logistical corridor for peoples and landlocked countries such as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, or even Chad. It opens them access to the Atlantic, hence the world, offering new routes for agriculture, mining, industry, technology, trade, and African economic integration. What Morocco is building is a grande porte continentale largement ouverte vers l'humanité. Morocco has resolutely and irrevocably put itself at the service of the continent, faithful to its roots and its ancestral African vocation. Under the visionary impulse of SM le Roi Mohammed VI, the Kingdom does not engage in propaganda. It has made and is realizing a strategic choice: to be an acteur de développement africain, not just a partner. Dakhla Atlantique is the concrete translation of this. Morocco positions itself as a pays-pont, a vector of stability and prosperity for all of West Africa and beyond. At a time when many nations struggle to find a compass, Morocco offers a model: that of a peaceful diplomacy, of assumed development, and of an ambition that does not apologize and asserts itself in peace. But the Cherifian ambition does not stop at geopolitics. It also touches science, innovation, and ecology. Green Morocco : to make the desert a laboratory of the future. In this Sahara long described as naked, hostile, mineral, useless, Morocco is cultivating one of the largest natural laboratories on the planet: **solar energies among the most powerful in the world, **uninterrupted wind energies, **green hydrogen," **blue energies, **marine technologies, **sustainable management of fishery resources, **new models of desert agriculture. Morocco loudly proclaims that the Sahara is no longer a void. It is a resource. A treasure of the future. A response to the world’s challenges. With this port, Morocco proves that it is possible to respect the environment, to enhance natural strengths, and to build development that does not crush but liberates. It is at this point that the struggle, for half a century, for the Sahara marocain takes on its full meaning and much amplitude. It is a rebirth, not a reconquest. This project is not a mere act of engineering. It is an act of love. An act of faith. An act of historic justice. The Moroccan Sahara is not a backdrop: it is le cœur battant d’un Maroc qui avance, of a people who believes, a nation that dreams big, of youth that expresses its talent and rejoices. Morocco does not seek to “win” its Sahara. It is there for eternity and adores it. It makes it live. It respects it. It values it. It honors it. And thus, it liberates its potential, but also that of millions of Africans who will find in Dakhla Atlantique an unprecedented horizon. Le Royaume du Maroc est ici l'architecte d’un futur continental. The port of Dakhla Atlantique is not just a titanic construction site. It is a manifesto of a Morocco that looks the world straight in the eye. A Morocco that does not apologize for being ambitious. A Morocco that transforms the desert into the future, isolation into connection, and dreams into infrastructure. Where Saint-Exupéry imagined a Petit Prince, Morocco has brought forth a giant. A peaceful, visionary, African giant. With the royal ambition of Sa Majesté Mohammed VI: The Sahara lives. Morocco advances. And Africa breathes a new wind. May I be allowed here to thank MD Sahara (Maroc Diplomatique) for giving me the chance to experience a moment that made me even prouder of who I am: a simple Moroccan citizen happy to live this exceptional reign. This is what inspired this modest text which I want to be a transcription of a strong and striking emotion, like a lasting tattoo, a testimony of admiration for friendships renewed or new on “les berges” of the colossal port construction site.

The Strange Mediation of Ahmed Attaf: Between Diplomatic Denial and Political Maneuver... 4312

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
The latest statement by Ahmed Attaf, the valiant Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, surprised even the most knowledgeable experts on the Saharan issue. By affirming that Algeria would be "willing to act as an intermediary between Morocco and the Polisario," Attaf seems to adopt a diplomatic stance bordering on the absurd, as it contradicts reality, international texts, and even Algeria's own strategic choices. Behind the calm tone favored by the Algerian diplomacy chief, this statement reveals a mix of political amnesia, internal calculation, and external smokescreen. He did not even explain why this proposal is being raised now. The first anomaly lies in the feigned ignorance of the essence of Security Council resolution 2797, which explicitly states that Algeria is a party to the conflict and, as such, is called to participate in negotiations under the leadership of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, but in the United States. In other words, Algeria cannot present itself as an external, neutral, or impartial actor. It is involved in the dossier and cannot exit by mere rhetoric. The second, even more glaring amnesia: Attaf acts as if no olive branch has been extended by Morocco to Algeria. Yet His Majesty King Mohammed VI has repeatedly expressly invited President Tebboune to frank, direct, and unconditional dialogue to address all bilateral issues, including the deep causes of tensions. He has never responded. Worse, he has maintained a diplomatic flight forward: unilateral rupture of relations, closure of airspace, sometimes incomprehensible hostile speeches, and reinforced support to the Polisario. In this context, Algeria's claim to want to “bring together” Rabat and the Polisario is more diplomatic theater than a sincere gesture. By presenting the conflict as a simple misunderstanding between “two parties” that Algeria could help overcome, Attaf adopts an almost naive tone, bordering on ridicule. As if Algeria's central role in the origin, maintenance, and militarization of the conflict was not an established, recognized, and documented fact. How can Algeria claim to be a mediator when: - the Polisario is hosted in Tindouf, on Algerian soil, - its leaders travel with Algerian diplomatic passports, - its President is transported by Algerian presidential plane, - its armament largely comes from Algiers, - its diplomacy depends on the Algerian Foreign Ministry, which dictates its content and approach. The claim to neutrality then becomes not only anachronistic but indecent in light of the history of the dossier. This improbable proposal might actually reveal Algeria’s disarray in the face of growing regional and international isolation. Algeria may seek to reposition itself as an actor of “peace” and “concord” in a context where its diplomacy is perceived as rigid, aggressive, and trapped in an outdated narrative. It is directly accused of favoring terrorism in the Sahel region. Mali, speaking at the UN, gave a very direct speech to that effect. It may also be, perhaps simultaneously, a way to discreetly reinitiate contact with Rabat without publicly assuming the reversal, while all crises between the two countries, including the current rupture, stem from unilateral Algerian decisions. Morocco has always been the ideal enemy to explain the army's grip on all state machinery. Algiers now knows, eventually, that this permanent tension will cost it dearly sooner or later, both strategically and internally. The maneuver surely aims to break isolation and possibly indirectly reconnect with Rabat. Who knows? In any case, the statement is a smokescreen to mask a spectacular flip-flop on the Sansal and Palestine issue. Sansal was released from prison and received at the Élysée; then, out of fear, voting for the US-sponsored resolution that envisions the disarmament of Hamas is a pirouette, a renunciation of the founding doctrine of the Algerian regime. The internal situation in Algeria must then be invoked. The domestic context plays a central role in recent reversals. The population faces: - persistent shortages, - a fragile socio-economic situation, - the plummeting value of the dinar, - growing incomprehension regarding contradictions of power. The shock was immense when Algeria, which proclaimed itself "more Palestinian than the Palestinians" and "more Hamas than Hamas," voted in favor of an American resolution that calls for the disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of an international force in Gaza. The ordinary Algerian is not ready to understand this sudden change of stance. The vote deeply disoriented an Algerian public used to fiery discourse against Washington the imperialist and Israel the Zionist. The official discourse has always been unconditionally pro-Hamas. In this tense atmosphere, Ahmed Attaf's statement looks like a media firebreak, intended to divert attention from Algeria's about-face on the Palestinian issue and on Sansal. Ultimately, Attaf’s proposal is neither serious, credible, nor neutral. However, it reveals: - a narrative crisis within Algerian diplomacy, - an increasingly heavy international isolation, - a fragile internal reality that the regime tries to mask with diplomatic artifices, - and a persistent difficulty in facing the truth of the conflict: Algeria has been a party since day one. Ambiguity is never far in Mr. Attaf's statements. Here again, he claims to want to act as a mediator, respecting all relevant Security Council resolutions. Of course, he reinstates the referendum condition, probably unaware that it has not been on the UN agenda since 2007. Attaf’s proposal is unacceptable in form and substance and brings nothing positive. It should be known that the press conference was staged and not live. Body language does not deceive: the man is under the junta's control and speaks as the mere voice of the army, the real power in Algeria. Interpreting resolution 2797 Algerian-style and simultaneously accepting and rejecting it is ridiculous. Rather than playing an imaginary mediator, Algiers would be better inspired to respond to Morocco’s olive branch and take its rightful place at the negotiation table, in accordance with international law and the facts.

Strategic Release of Boualem Sansal: Saving Face for Algiers... 4340

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who is also French and 81 years old, was arrested at Algiers airport on November 16, 2024, following an interview in which he addressed certain historical truths that, according to Algerian authorities, constituted a threat to the integrity of the country. Welcoming President Macron's decision to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, Sansal notably asserted that France had mutilated Morocco by attaching significant territories to Algeria—a particularly sensitive issue for Algerian leadership. In March 2025, a court sentenced Sansal to five years in prison for “undermining national unity,” a very serious accusation. To the general surprise, or almost, on November 12, President Abdelmadjid Tebboune granted Sansal a pardon following an express request from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Sansal was transferred to Germany and immediately hospitalized. The man, suffering from cancer, had seen his health deteriorate considerably during incarceration. The rapid evolution of this case follows German mediation, whereas repeated calls from France for Sansal’s release had gone unanswered. Officially, the pardon was presented as a “humanitarian, generous act.” Nevertheless, this release cannot be viewed outside of geopolitical stakes and is obviously, in essence, a strategic maneuver to defuse the Franco-Algerian crisis that has intensified in recent months. The German mediation came, as everyone knows, in a tense context between Algiers and Paris. In October 2024, France recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over the Moroccan Sahara, provoking Algerian outrage and a swift and significant cooling of bilateral relations. Sansal’s arrest, as a dissenting Algerian figure, was seen as a pressure tactic on France, whose nationality Sansal also holds. Efforts were in vain: In January, the European Parliament condemned the arrest and demanded the author’s release, but Algeria remained unmoved. What explains Germany’s surprise role, when other countries had reportedly tried unsuccessfully to make Algiers relent? In fact, Germany maintains more neutral relations with Algeria than France and thereby offers Algiers a diplomatically acceptable way out, avoiding a major loss of prestige. Boualem Sansal had become a real hot potato that needed to be dealt with quickly. It is even said, here and there in Algiers, that his arrest had been a mistake. The fact that President Tebboune was treated in Germany further strengthens these ties. Through this channel, Algiers enhances its international image without capitulating directly to France, dampening the perception of surrender. It should also be noted that Sansal is highly appreciated and read in Germany, where he received the country’s most prestigious literary awards. This partly explains the unexpected mediation. The release appears to be part of an Algerian strategy to manage international pressures without direct compromise with Paris, thus preserving the regime’s image. Germany, as an intermediary, helps to ease tensions while maintaining Algerian internal political stability. As always, Algerian media were quick to organize debates lauding the “humanism” and “great wisdom” of President Tebboune. They kept declaring victory—although it’s not clear over whom, victory nonetheless. As usual, debates invoked in no particular order: Zionism, the makhzen, the French enemy, defense of the homeland, etc. Sansal is pardoned but remains the nation’s execrable traitor. The truth is that Algeria’s current economic and strategic situation no longer allows it to posture confidently. Facing growing diplomatic isolation, dependence on hydrocarbons, and a slowing economy with a historic devaluation of the dinar, the Algerian regime uses Sansal’s release as a symbolic act to refurbish its image—as even its historic partners, Russia and China, have turned to Morocco. One might also interpret the situation in terms of intersecting interests. Germany likely served as a useful intermediary, indirectly addressing the interests of both France and Algeria. For Paris, passing mediation to Berlin sustains a humane posture without direct confrontation with Algiers. For Algiers, responding to a German request avoids symbolic retreat before its former colonizer. The implications are clear. The Algerian regime retains its authoritarian framework; Sansal’s release does not indicate weakness. Algerian media even try to show the affair reveals France’s loss of influence, claiming Paris sought to isolate Algiers. Thanks to the release, Algerian diplomacy allegedly becomes multipolar. In reality, compromise was necessary to reduce Algeria’s diplomatic and economic isolation. The country’s structural challenges remain significant. Algerian media are eager to present Sansal’s release by German mediation as evidence of profound change in the regional diplomatic balance in Algeria’s favor. They claim France has lost its historic near-monopoly in relations, confronted by a sovereign Algerian state that has diversified its European partnerships. According to these media narratives, this development symbolically weakens Paris and strengthens Algeria’s conquering, multipolar diplomacy. Beyond certain arguably ridiculous remarks meant to calm Algeria’s internal front, this release will have a positive impact on Franco-Algerian relations and, beyond that, on German diplomacy in the region. For Germany, this diplomatic success consolidates its geopolitical role in the Mediterranean and North Africa, giving it new political, economic, and security leverage. Berlin’s standing with Algerian authorities and neighboring countries improves and its strategic partnerships in this key region are reinforced. Recall that Germany had already voiced positive support for the Moroccan self-determination project in the Sahara. The release of Boualem Sansal therefore goes well beyond humanitarian matters; it becomes a point of diplomatic, symbolic, and economic convergence. Germany’s selection as intermediary allowed Algeria to respond to international pressure while apparently preserving its image vis-à-vis France—at least for its own population. France achieved its objective: freeing Boualem Sansal. Yet, for Algiers, it was always a matter of national dignity.

Moroccan Sahara: The Irreversible Truth Confronting Denial 4655

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Since the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2927, arithmetically, broadly, and logically favorable to Morocco, Algeria seems to refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Despite the clarity of the text and the broad international consensus it generated, Algiers continues its diplomatic and media agitation, multiplying interpretations and contradictory positions. Leading this charge is Minister Ahmed Attaf, sent to the front lines. He is conducting a verbal offensive where misinformation rivals obstinacy. Every word of the resolution is dissected, twisted, and reinterpreted by Algerian agencies and their media outlets. Here, there is no fear of ridicule. It is fully embraced. Some international statements are even distorted to give them a coloring and meaning conforming to Algiers’ narrative. Staffan de Mistura, personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General, as well as Massad Boulos, have not escaped these discursive manipulations. Only Aljazeera continues the distortion and spares no words. This is not surprising: Algiers is sanctified there for well-known reasons. This now usual strategy relies on fake news and disinformation, which have become preferred tools in Algerian diplomacy when it comes to the Sahara dossier. Yet, one fact remains indisputable: Morocco is truly at home in its Sahara and asks neither permission nor validation from anyone to remain there. Fifty years after the artificial triggering of this dispute, Algeria seems to have learned no lesson and even less awareness; despite billions of dollars invested that could have benefited the Algerian people; despite successive military and diplomatic defeats, obstinacy remains the watchword here. A chronic morbidity. Since the 1991 ceasefire, the political and diplomatic momentum has irreversibly shifted in Morocco’s favor. The Kingdom has achieved a true Remontada, as Samir Bennis likes to say. The effect of propaganda and blind support from the Eastern bloc and its allies has faded. Everyone has come to reason, except a few exceptions upheld by outdated means. Morocco’s autonomy proposal, judged serious and credible by the international community, is now the sole recognized basis for a solution by the Security Council. Facing this, Algiers continues to rely on a network of marginal allies: South Africa, Iran, which have in turn expressed their dismay over Algiers' defeat, and Venezuela; all struggling to hide their diplomatic isolation. These supporters oppose a resolution which, however, places the political solution proposed by Morocco at the core of the UN process. But to no avail: U.S., French, British positions, and now Chinese and Russian ones, as well as explicit or implicit support from over 130 countries, confirm that the wind of history blows definitively in Morocco’s favor. In this context, the Kingdom displays a posture of calm firmness. His Majesty King Mohammed VI, faithful to his policy of an outstretched hand, has reaffirmed his desire for a "solution without victor or vanquished." The calm tone of his remarks confirms both his goodwill but also warns that Morocco’s patience has limits. The message is clear: the time for unilateral concessions is over; there is no alternative to the self-determination plan put forth. Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita summarized this position with a significant smile on channel 2M: "The matter is closed." This friendly smile, more than a gesture, reflects the confidence of a country sure of its rights, backed by historical, legal, political legitimacy, and now UN recognition. Who can say more? The decision of the Moroccan sovereign to designate October 31, the date of the vote of resolution 2927, as a new national holiday is not trivial. It marks a symbolic turning point: the definitive consolidation of the Sahara within the national fold and the international recognition of this reality. The Kingdom’s message is unequivocal: Morocco has waited too long, compromised too much, to continue to suffer the sterile deadlock maintained by its belligerent neighbor to the East. Now, the time has come to accelerate development, modernization, and socio-economic valorization of the South, which has become an engine of national and regional growth. This is how to interpret this declaration: There is a before and after October 31, 2025. A change of paradigm in the neighbors would make us all gain more than two points of annual growth, with all that this implies for the peoples of the region. Yet Algiers refuses, even though the country is adrift and its population lacks the essentials to live decently. But the Algerian military, behind their fake stripes, do not care. Stubborn, they see no further than the tip of their nose... They probably have not understood what Syria, Libya, and Iraq suffered, nor similar cases in Latin America. Stubbornness in folly and denial of reality can only be counterproductive. History demonstrates this abundantly. One must know how to read this history and learn from it. Algeria, unfortunately for its people, persists in a strategy of refusal, forgetting that the world has changed and diplomatic balances have shifted. It still thinks it can buy time and bet on a new American presidency in three years. Three years is long for President Trump... While Morocco advances, builds, and invests in its Southern provinces, supported by the common sense of those who know how to do business for the benefit of their peoples, Algiers remains trapped in a bygone past and an exhausted ideological narrative. The Sharifian Kingdom, on the other hand, looks to the future, serene in its legitimacy, solid in its national unity, confident in its rights, and now carried by the international recognition of a truth that is indisputable: the Sahara is Moroccan, and it will remain so.

Morocco, united and indivisible: October 31, memory and vision of a united kingdom... 4521

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
There are dates that cease to be mere markers to become strong symbols. By establishing le 31 octobre “Fête de l’Unité”, His Majesty King Mohammed VI has not only added a day to the national calendar of holidays: he has inscribed in the collective memory a certainty, that of a united Morocco, faithful to its history, confident in its destiny, certain of its future. This choice, placed on the eve of the anniversary of la Marche Verte, is not a coincidence, but a message. It links two moments: one of memory, the other of hope, to remind that in Morocco, unity is not a stance, but a collective philosophy of life, a historical continuity, a conviction ingrained in the soul of the country and each of its citizens. The age-old unity of the Kingdom is the golden thread of Moroccan history. **On November 6, 1975, three hundred and fifty thousand Moroccans, the Quran in one hand and the flag in the other, it must be recalled, supported by many nationals of friendly countries, including a Prince not to be overlooked, marched south to reclaim what should never have been lost: the Sahara, the Kingdom’s matrix.** La Marche Verte was not a conquest; it was a return, a peaceful affirmation of a legitimacy older than the borders drawn with rulers on colonial maps. It was also a vow between the Throne and the people, between the past and the future. A vow that nothing, neither diplomatic maneuvers nor hostile campaigns, nor propaganda worth billions of dollars, could undermine. The Moroccan does not yield. The Moroccan is faithful to his commitments. The Moroccan keeps his word, the Moroccan is aware of the diversity of his country but conceives it only in unity and cohesion. By deciding to make le 31 octobre "la Fête de l’Unité", His Majesty King Mohammed VI reactivates this vow and transposes it into the present time: Morocco’s unity is not a glorious memory, but a horizon built every day, a future forged on law and faith, diplomacy and perseverance, development and shared prosperity. For half a century, Moroccan diplomacy has patiently unrolled the thread of a clear strategy: defending Morocco’s sovereignty over the Sahara without ever yielding to provocation, making legitimacy prevail by reason and not by force. Recent résolutions du Conseil de sécurité have confirmed the soundness of this line. They endorse the seriousness and credibility of the Moroccan autonomy proposal, a realistic, modern path, consistent with the aspirations of the local populations and the entire Moroccan people who have adhered to it, fully understanding the sacrifice requested. **Conversely, Algeria persists in an anachronistic stance, entrenched in its support for Polisario, which no longer represents more than a shadow of itself. A movement built on lies, fake news, and propaganda worth billions of dollars. It is probably the most costly situation of its kind since humans existed.** No one has ever known how many Sahrawis truly followed Polisario, or how many, with the help of its patrons, it brought from Mauritania, Mali, Nigeria, Chad, and elsewhere to strengthen its ranks. The generosity of Gaddafi having greatly helped, it must not be forgotten! Today, Algeria is cornered into allowing le recensement des populations des camps and census means, in parallel, identification. The fixed discourse of the separatists no longer holds sway over reality: while the Tindouf camps are mired in waiting, the Southern Provinces of Morocco awaken to life, development, and dignity. The contrast is striking: there, immobility; here, construction. There, ideology; here, reality. "La Marche Verte" was never a closed episode; it has become a national doctrine, a founding story, a living myth, the belief of a nation: the oldest nation in the world. It has forged a rare national consciousness, made of loyalty and faith in the continuity of the Kingdom. In a world marked by fragmentation and wounded identities, Morocco has made its unity a compass, not nostalgia. In Laâyoune, Dakhla, Smara, Boujdour, or Bir Guendouz, the fervor of the October 31 celebrations says better than speeches the depth of this bond. These cities, once marginalized, today embody a Morocco on the move, confident, faithful to its roots, and looking to its future. *The South is no longer a remote part of the Kingdom: it is its beating heart.* The Sahara is a promise of the future, a development laboratory, and a strategic hub of the Kingdom. Investments in renewable energy, fishing, infrastructure, tourism, and logistics have transformed the region into an essential crossroads between Africa, the Atlantic, and Europe. Here is being experimented, in open air, the royal vision of a modern, balanced, and inclusive Morocco, a Morocco that leaves no region behind. The "Fête de l’Unité" is not just a tribute to the past: it is a projection into the future. The "Fête de l'Unité" tells Moroccan youth that unity is not a legacy to be admired, but a building to be built, constructed day by day, through work, loyalty, and faith in the nation, with an unyielding respect for the memory of sacrifices and a firm belief in the promise of continuity. On October 31, Morocco celebrates, but remembers: the soldiers fallen on the dunes, the diplomats who have defended the national cause on all the world’s stages, the pioneers who built in the sand the foundations of exemplary development. Through them, it is a whole country that looks at itself in the mirror of its history, not to indulge, but to draw strength to go further. *Because deep down, Morocco’s unity is not a political act; it is a historical truth, a state of mind, a visceral loyalty.* October 31 simply gives it a name, a date, a renewed breath. There is no unity without memory, nor memory without the future. Morocco has never celebrated the past for the past but always as an evocation to project into the future. It has never believed in a fixed memory rent. Strong in its history and regained sovereignty, it now advances with the serenity of those who have nothing to prove, only to pursue. Its DNA is special but never to isolate itself. On the contrary, the Kingdom sees itself as part of a world open to cooperation, freedom, and prosperity. *In the southern wind, in the distance, the same vow always resonates: One Kingdom, one soul, one destiny.*

Ahmed Attaf and the Thousand-Time Waltz... 4825

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
The latest appearance of the valiant Ahmed Attaf is strikingly different from what we have come to expect from him. Still hiding behind his habitual composure, he nonetheless lets a certain unease seep through this time. The man is embarrassed. He is at once a juggler, a tightrope walker, an acrobat, a dancer, and the regime’s fireman. He searches for his words, his sentences seem to cut his breath short. At times, he gasps. His statements are full of contradictions and twisted contortion, the very archetype of a diplomat out of breath, yet still skillful. In his role as firefighter, he tries to reassure domestically, even to timidly proclaim, yet proclaim nonetheless, a great victory. Algeria, he insists, has made the entire world, the USA first among them, bend to its will. As a juggler, he seeks to reassure the great powers, pretending modestly that his country holds no grudges, thus avoiding any offense to their sensibilities. A perilous exercise indeed, for soon he will be summoned to the negotiating table as a direct stakeholder. There, he will need all his ingenuity to escape the dictates of peace that the international community seeks to impose, a peace to be built with Morocco. He now perfectly understands that he can no longer sail under disguise: his country is directly involved. Behind his measured tone and carefully chosen words, his media appearance follows a precise logic built around three goals: calming the domestic front, preparing public opinion for a return to negotiations on the Sahara issue, and reaffirming Algeria’s red line: no normalization with Rabat. Like a skilled tightrope walker, he subtly boasts that the divergence with Washington and Brussels is “under control.” Indeed, the U.S. can very well understand the first two points—internal appeasement and preparation for talks, but fundamentally differs from Algiers on the question of rapprochement with Morocco. For Washington, this normalization is a cornerstone of its Atlantic-African strategy surrounding critical minerals, a key front in its rivalry with China. The European Union shares this view: it sees Moroccan-Algerian reconciliation as a prerequisite to reviving the Euro-Mediterranean project, which has been paralyzed for years by the rivalry between the two neighbors. Brussels and Washington may both believe that this strategic disagreement can be managed in the short term, since their common priority remains the resumption of negotiations on the Sahara, a stabilizing priority for the region. But everyone understands that the Algerian military regime sent Attaf to absorb the shock of the New York earthquake. His first mission, then, was to calm tempers after the blow dealt by the latest UN Security Council resolution, which reaffirmed the Moroccan autonomy plan as a serious and credible basis, indeed, the very outcome of the negotiation process. Morocco’s diplomatic success triggered a real shockwave in Algiers, where the regime fears that diplomatic defeat could turn into internal strife between different factions of power, particularly between the military hierarchy and the political front. To prevent such implosion, Attaf tried to rewrite the official narrative: the resolution, he claimed, was not a Moroccan triumph but an Algerian victory—Algeria had “prevented the imposition of the Moroccan agenda.” This interpretation blatantly contradicts the statements of Algeria’s own representative at the UN, who justified the country’s abstention by the central role given to the autonomy plan. Yet, in the media sphere, the maneuver worked. Attaf’s discourse found favorable echoes, even among certain critical circles within the regime. In truth, this appeasement operation also suits Washington and Rabat: it guarantees the stability of the Algerian regime and maintains domestic calm, conditions necessary to pave the way for future discussions without internal interference. Everyone is now working to prepare the ground for negotiations. Attaf’s second objective was to prepare national and international public opinion for the idea of returning to the negotiating table, in line with U.S. pressure to revive a concrete political process. The minister thus sought to present the UN resolution in a positive light, even calling it “a victory for the principles of the Sahrawi cause,” while claiming that Algeria would have voted in favor if not for a phrase mentioning “Moroccan sovereignty.” A clever balancing act, meant to narrow the gap between official discourse and diplomatic reality, and to justify a possible Algerian participation in new talks without appearing weak. This tactical repositioning remains fragile. If U.S. pressure were to ease, Algiers might once again resort to delaying tactics to stall or hollow out the process. But the Americans are not fooled, and they are in a hurry. From Morocco’s perspective, this evolution is far from unfavorable: Rabat favors a negotiated settlement, with no victor or vanquished, as long as autonomy remains the end goal. Algiers, for its part, seeks to preserve its red line, no normalization with Rabat. The third axis of Attaf’s communication was to avoid an existential danger for the regime: being perceived as yielding to normalization with Rabat under Washington’s pressure. In a scenario of heightened constraint, Algeria might accept a political solution on the Sahara issue, but without taking the diplomatic rapprochement step. To consolidate this stance, Attaf deliberately rewrote the lexicon of the UN text. Where the resolution speaks of “parties,” “political settlement,” and “autonomy,” he preferred “decolonization,” “referendum,” and “Sahrawi people.” This deliberate semantic shift aims to sustain the illusion that Algeria remains faithful to its doctrinal logic, even though the referendum scenario was abandoned by the United Nations nearly two decades ago. His media appearance was therefore not merely a diplomatic reaction to a UN resolution, but a carefully orchestrated communication operation. It pursued three objectives: to calm the domestic front, prepare public opinion for future talks, and reaffirm the refusal of any normalization with Rabat. Ironically, these very three lines of communication, meant to defend Algeria’s position, end up reinforcing the UN framework for resolution—the very framework that enshrines Morocco’s autonomy plan as the main reference, redrawing regional balances to the benefit of Morocco and its Western allies.

Morocco triumphs at the UN but remains humble and open... Algeria responds with denial... 5168

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
The United Nations Security Council vote, it must still be reminded, marked a decisive turning point for Moroccan diplomacy and the future of the region. “There is a before and after October 31,” said His Majesty the King. Through broad and unequivocal support for the Kingdom's position, the international community once again confirms the credibility of the Moroccan approach via the autonomy plan proposed since 2007. In fact, the international community thus salutes Morocco’s stability as a credible regional actor and highlights its immense efforts in developing the southern territories and their spectacular progress benefiting its citizens and the regional populations. This success is no accident: it results from a relevant, consistent, patient, firm, and humble royal vision, favoring dialogue and cooperation rather than escalation and provocation. His Majesty King Mohammed VI has never ceased calling for reason and cooperation for 26 years. Immediately after the vote results were announced, His Majesty once again called for direct and sincere dialogue with Algeria, addressing President Tebboune explicitly. The message is framed within a logic of peace and historical responsibility. The sovereign, far from being triumphalist, extends his hand once more to a neighbor who insists on hiding behind outdated slogans and archaic postures. This offered hand starkly contrasts with the rejection and even hatred that dominates the other side of the border. While Rabat multiplies gestures of openness, Algiers stubbornly remains closed to all dialogue, preferring a haughty stance, sterile confrontation, and counterproductive refusal of reason. A chronic resentment that surprisingly becomes doctrine. The reaction of Algerian media after the Security Council vote shows a mindset marked by disinformation, propaganda, hatred, and a mean-spirited aggression. Some statements on state television even questioned the integrity of the member states that supported Morocco’s position; others spoke, just hours after the vote, of a possible return to arms, as if war could remedy a stinging diplomatic failure. More worrying still, insults toward Morocco, notably the label of a country "in the pocket of the Zionists," reveal a level of extreme nervousness nearing loss of control. The word "makhzen," knowingly debased, is thrown to the wolves by debaters competing in buffoonery and comic exaggeration. Do they realize that this hateful language only strengthens Algiers’ isolation? By accusing the whole world of conspiracy, the Algerian military may not realize that diplomacy must be a realm of credibility and trust, not blind resentment. Meanwhile, the world watches and finally understands. Algeria neither seeks nor wants to be a partner in peace and construction. Today, the international community witnesses: Morocco proposes, Algeria blocks. Morocco builds, Algeria destroys. Morocco advocates cooperation, Algeria confrontation. From Washington to Paris, Madrid to Dakar, Seoul to Brasilia, Riyadh to Freetown, capitals have grasped the difference between a forward-looking policy and a stance frozen in outdated ideological nostalgia, laughable. The Sahara is no longer a matter of regional propaganda but a global stability issue: it touches the Sahel’s security, the fight against terrorism, and the balance of the entire North African space. Algeria’s obstinacy is costly, and the world is tired of it. By clinging to a matter in which it declares itself "not concerned," Algeria traps itself in an unbearable contradiction and a burdensome attitude. How long can this unsustainable situation persist without the international community intervening to end this obvious support to a group with dubious activities? The day fatigue increases, particularly in the United States, which could come soon, the temptation to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization would become possible and credible. This is quite plausible considering the separatists’ military activities, their regional ties with recognized terrorist groups, and their presence in an area rife with trafficking in which they actively participate. Nothing would prevent it since the idea is already circulating in the US Congress, introduced by Joe Wilson, who gathers much support. Algiers would then be in an untenable position, responsible for harboring, funding, and arming a terrorist group. Such a drift would expose the Algerian regime to its own contradictions and risks. Algerian insults, from officials and press alike, sometimes direct, sometimes barely veiled toward France, Spain, even the USA and now the Security Council and all those supporting the Kingdom will eventually take effect. Pushing the Polisario to declare that it will not participate in negotiations is just suicidal for Algiers. We must never forget that the future belongs to those who build, and that builder is Morocco, which has chosen the path of building a better future for itself and the region. The Kingdom has opted for partnership and peace. It consolidates its African leadership, strengthens its alliances, and modernizes its internal institutions. Its diplomacy is based on trust, coherence, and mutual respect—values that increasingly distinguish Rabat on the international stage. While Algerian rulers rehearse their grudges, the Kingdom forges ahead, confident in its successes, faithful to its principles, open to dialogue but firm in defending its vital interests. The royal message is clear. Morocco fears neither confrontation, nor disinformation, nor fake news, and will always prefer peace based on responsibility rather than the turmoil of misplaced pride. The joyful and highly significant demonstrations of Moroccan citizens immediately after the royal speech showed the world that the Sahara issue, for Moroccans, is not just a stance or a power game. Aware of the global stakes of the matter, protesters in Laayoune, Boujdour, Dakhla as well as in Tangier or Agadir did not fail to salute the powers that favored the vote of resolution 27-97 on October 31, 2025. Far from mocking Algerians, they celebrated for themselves and for the free world. Here, the issue is not emotional but genetic. Algeria and Algerians must integrate this and are called to reflect. The wind has truly changed and forever on October 31.

Wealth inequality as a question of Inflation and Taxation 5508

Tariq Daouda, 3 mon.
Wealth inequality has been periodically rising up at the forefront of political discussions since 2008: almost 20 years now. With the same seemingly smart analysis pointing out that wealth inequality results in social unrest, often terminating with the "solution" of taxing the rich. First of all, although it does seem that wealth inequality leads to social unrest today, it's not at all a historical fact, when historical societies with massive wealth inequality have persisted for centuries. This raises the question of political manipulation and instrumentalisation. It also points out to a material switch in the moral compass that occurred more than century ago. Fruit of a materialism Zeitgeist that colored of all the "isms" of the era: Capitalism, Marxisim, Socialism and Communism ideologies, etc.. . All raised materiality has a moral imperative. Above kindness, honesty, generosity, honor, and the rest of the set of virtues that humanity has recognized for ages. When inflation rises the value of assets compared to money increases. It means that, as money devalues, if you own land, stocks, businesses, and things of the sort, you do not get to be richer, but you get to keep what you have. This is what is commonly referred to as "the transfer of wealth" to the richest. It's not a transfer at all, the word "transfer" suggests that wealth is being taken from the population at large and given to the richest. What is happening is that the asset of most people is "Money / Currency". This is a devaluating asset by design (the inflation rate set by central banks), and the more it devalues, the less it is worth compared to everything else. Then there is taxation. Taxation disproportionately affects people who derive their income from good paying salaries. . When adding up all taxes indexed on their salaries and the indirect taxes, their tax burden can be over 60%. These are historically high numbers, nowhere near the taxation levels of asset owners, or the low salaries earners. It means they don't even get to keep half of what they made. These incredibly high numbers also hinder the capacity of the most productive members of the population to acquire assets, start businesses, and over all participate into the economy to their full extent. In comparison, the lowest payed workers. However they are disproportionally affected by indirect taxation and consumption taxes (ex: VAT). That represent a higher percentage of their income. The most direct solution to reducing wealth inequality, is not to make the richest poorer. It's to make everybody richer, and the shortest path to do that is to get rid of inflation, lower the tax burden on salaries and, have a very low or even no consumption tax. It seems obvious, let people keep most of what they make so that they attain higher levels of material wellbeing doing what they already do. And make sure that their savings do not lose value over time.

Recognition of Palestine: Historic Gesture or Too Late? 5425

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
- World Politics - History -
2 min read.
The decision this week by several Western powers to recognize the State of Palestine could have been hailed as a founding moment in contemporary history. Coordinated and announced almost in unison, it seems to mark a decisive milestone in a conflict that has torn the Middle East apart for more than seven decades. Yet, between symbolic significance and concrete impotence, this gesture raises a dilemma: is it an act that will make history or a missed opportunity due to its tardiness? A recognition long awaited and especially delayed for numerous reasons, more or less understandable. Since the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the PLO in 1988, at the behest of the most alert Arab countries, with Morocco leading the way, marking the transition from an armed struggle bordering on terrorism to a reliable entity, a political interlocutor and partner, more than 140 countries, mainly from the Global South, have taken the step of recognition. It is the Western powers, particularly European ones, that were slow to align. Yet, their political, diplomatic, and financial weight could have, in the 1990s or 2000s, influenced the intense negotiations then underway and given substance to the two-state solution promoted by the Oslo Accords. By choosing to act today, in a context where the prospect of a viable Palestinian state seems more distant than ever, many facts having shifted on the ground, the Western powers appear to recognize more the legitimate cause of a people than they make it effective. The Oslo Accords have been bypassed and are now worthless. What remains is the symbolic weight of recognition. However, it would be reductive to minimize the significance of this gesture. In the diplomatic arena, official recognition could be a major symbolic weapon: it would confer additional legitimacy to Palestine, strengthen its positions in international bodies, and create a political precedent. For Israel, it sends a clear message: the patience of its traditional allies may have eroded in the face of the deadlock of the status quo and the continued expansion of settlements in particular. Unfortunately, it also reveals Western impotence. Beyond the symbol, the reality remains harsh: Gaza remains under siege, the West Bank fragmented, and East Jerusalem under constant tension. Without coercive mechanisms, without economic or diplomatic pressure, these announcements risk remaining a moral signal rather than an instrument of transformation. In other words, the West writes a declaration in history but without real control over its course, even though it is decisions by this same West that are at the origin of the extremely dramatic situation in the region. So, what will we talk about after time has taken its toll? Has the West marked or missed history? The recognition of the State of Palestine by these Western powers remains an important diplomatic step but also reveals a paradox: it comes at a time when the solution it was supposed to endorse seems more distant than ever. To make history is to act when action can change the fate of peoples. To miss it is to settle for observing, too late, what history has already decided. The ambiguity is there: this is a gesture heavy with symbols but weak in concrete effects, and above all, a meeting probably too late to have the historical impact it could have had two or three decades ago. It remains to address the Palestinians themselves: The numerous militant factions attached to unsavory causes and ideologies should cease their harmful game and all should align around an intelligent and achievable line. Palestinians should seize the opportunity with pragmatism and especially independence in their way of understanding, seeing, and acting. Perhaps this is the condition for these recognitions to weigh on the course of history.

At 80 years old, the UN wavers between its founding ideal and tragic impotence… 5438

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
As every year, at the end of September, the opening of the General Assembly seeks solemnity, and is often described as historic. But is the world really gathered here to decide its future? Is it truly within these walls that decisions that matter are made? As always, it falls to the Secretary-General to make the assessment and take stock. Before the General Assembly in New York, the Secretary-General of the United Nations once again gravely recalled the primary purpose of the Organization, born 80 years ago as a bulwark against chaos, war, and barbarism. The UN, he stressed, has never been an abstract ideal, but a pragmatic tool to safeguard humanity’s survival through three pillars: cooperation, law, and peace. Yet the tone, the words, and the expressions of the valiant Secretary-General left no doubt: he is powerless, and his organization is withering. One could sense he himself was shaken by the bleak diagnosis he delivered about our times. This founding reminder was followed by an implacable assessment: the principles of the UN Charter are increasingly flouted. Wars, invasions, famines, and climate crises are multiplying. From Sudan to Ukraine, from Gaza to the Sahel, deep in Africa, conflicts take root and drag on, with hardly a glimmer of hope for a just resolution. Whole generations will bear the mark. The scars will not fade any time soon. Truth and human dignity are instrumentalized, while social and environmental fractures deepen. With a tone mixing lucidity and anxiety, the Secretary-General posed the question underlying his entire speech: *“What world will we choose?”* He then shifted into a more diplomatically acceptable address, tinged with a hint of optimism. True to his role, he outlined five crucial choices for the future. Will he be heard? He knows perfectly well the answer is no. **1. Peace rooted in international law.** He called for condemning violations of the Charter and the impunity of aggressors. He pleaded for ceasefires, an end to foreign interference, and a reform of the Security Council. Yet that very evening, bombs would still fall, and innocent bodies would still litter the ground. **2. Human rights as the foundation of peace.** Equality, dignity, and social justice were placed at the heart of the speech. But are we truly equal before the law? Who still believes it? **3. Climate justice.** Weary, the old man reminded the Assembly of the urgent need to accelerate the energy transition, denouncing fossil fuel subsidies and pointing to the colossal financial needs of the Global South: $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. But what is that word “justice” worth in a world where the president of the leading scientific, economic, and military power dismisses renewable energy as a “scam”? Who is to be believed? **4. Technology in the service of humanity.** Artificial intelligence was cited as a major challenge: a promise of innovation, but also a risk of autonomous weapons, mass surveillance, and new digital divides. He called for a universal framework of governance. But who will respect it, other than those already respecting the rules? **5. Strengthening the UN for the 21st century.** The Secretary-General denounced the glaring imbalance between military spending and investments for peace, calling for a renewed and effective multilateralism. Yet in this hall designed to gather humanity around universal values, who is still listening? Is multilateralism not dying a quiet death, abandoned by the great powers themselves? The speech was meant to be solemn and mobilizing. Words were carefully chosen: impunity, chaos, famine, horrors. Rhetorical questions and binary oppositions (“brute force or laws?”, “the law of the strongest or universal rights?”) punctuated his address. Through the collective *“we”*, António Guterres recalled the preamble of the Charter: *“We, the peoples of the United Nations.”* But, like a weary sage, he mostly sketched a political and moral roadmap. As a lucid man, he knows his speech will change nothing. He has done his duty. He absolves himself. This speech, to which only tears were missing, was not just an assessment, but a call to action. It sought to reaffirm the central role of the UN and to underline that the challenges of our time—wars, climate, artificial intelligence, human rights—transcend borders. Between the lines, the central message was clear: revitalizing multilateralism is not an ideological option, but a vital necessity. But vital for whom? Facing a fragmented world, the UN wishes to become once again the voice of unity and hope. But to whom is this message addressed, if not to the powerful who stopped listening long ago? The rest of the world will applaud. Future generations will judge. *“Le machin” (“that thing”), as De Gaulle once called it, has never seemed so powerless.* Now comes the turn of the fine speeches of those present. Speeches carefully written by scribes and *performed* by a few actors and many extras. In any case, see you next year—no doubt with more injustice, more suffering, more lawlessness, more tragedies, and more meaningless deaths.

“Peace and Return with Dignity”: A Sahrawi Collective Calls for Voluntary Return to Morocco 5101

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
Founded in June 2025 in Nouadhibou by Sahrawis living in Mauritania, Europe, and the Tindouf camps in Algeria, a collective named “Peace and Return with Dignity” seeks to promote the voluntary return of “refugees” to Morocco. Under the leadership of Badi Abdelaziz—who presents himself as a former separatist military cadre turned opponent of the Polisario Front, the group issued an appeal in September 2025 to the Moroccan authorities, requesting facilitation of repatriation for Sahrawis under safe and dignified conditions. While Moroccan press outlets relayed this initiative, it has remained largely absent from the media in the neighboring country and its proxy, for obvious reasons. The collective denounces the “difficult” and “inhumane” conditions endured by populations in the Tindouf camps, blaming the Polisario’s oppressive administration and calling for guarantees of safety and dignity for those wishing to return. This initiative highlights both humanitarian concerns already raised by several NGOs and the voices of Sahrawis themselves seeking to break free from dominant structures (the Polisario Front and the Algerian military authorities). The stakes are therefore both humanitarian and political. According to Badi Abdelaziz, the initiative aligns with the recommendations previously emphasized by Morocco’s UN ambassador, Omar Hilale, who underlined that "refugee" return requires an official census, a demand made for years by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but never carried out, blocked by Algeria’s military junta. A census is considered a prerequisite to identify those eligible for return. As widely known, not all those held in Tindouf originate from the region. The collective therefore aims to ensure a transparent and rights-based return, while challenging the Polisario’s political control over the camps. The population, weary of harsh living conditions, is increasingly aware of the false propaganda and of its exploitation by the Polisario separatists for agendas far removed from official rhetoric. UN agencies, in their Sahrawi Refugees Response Plan 2024-2025, estimate funding needs at nearly USD 104 million to assist those held in Tindouf, underlining their total dependence on international aid. These figures reflect the gravity of the situation, which fuels both diplomatic and humanitarian debates on the so-called Western Sahara issue, especially as many reports, backed by evidence, stress the systematic diversion of aid. The group’s call must also be seen in the light of the geopolitical evolution of this dossier with its multiple regional and international ramifications. The international community, and major powers first and foremost, are weary of the situation Algeria created and continues to maintain at exorbitant cost, at the expense of its own development, the well-being of its people, and regional security. In this context, the roles of Mauritania and Algeria are central. Mauritania, though relatively neutral, nevertheless hosted and tolerated the launch of this collective in Nouadhibou, perhaps signaling a shift or a willingness to open more pragmatic dialogue. Algeria, on the other hand, remains the Polisario’s staunchest political and military backer. The reality today is that Algeria’s military junta uses this conflict to boost regional influence, counter Morocco’s growing weight, and above all export its failures and chronic shortcomings, despite the country’s immense wealth. The Morocco-Algeria rivalry, fueled solely by Algiers, is further exacerbated by this issue, blocking regional progress such as Maghreb reunification and broader economic integration. The conflict hampers cooperation on trade, security, and migration, at a time when the region faces shared challenges like terrorism, irregular migration, and climate change. International actors also play a pivotal role and increasingly seem eager to fast-track a resolution. The United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and other EU, African, Asian, and Latin American countries have clearly aligned with Morocco’s position, recognizing the Moroccan sovereignty of the territories in question on the basis of factual and objective arguments. The recent visit of Minister Bourita to Beijing also appears to support this trend. Officially, however, the status quo remains, at least until the next UN Security Council meeting on the matter. Morocco has consolidated its network of support thanks to its autonomy plan, arguing that it represents the realistic solution that respects territorial integrity and national unity. This proposal appeals to partners faced with the chimera of independence promoted by Algeria’s proxy. Security considerations weigh heavily as well. The Sahara is a strategic corridor for drug and arms trafficking, raising alarms among Western powers. Stability in the area is therefore crucial not only for local populations but also for regional and international security. The “Peace and Return with Dignity” collective thus offers a fresh internal perspective: a significant portion of Sahrawis rejects prolonging the conflict at the cost of continued suffering. Its endorsement of autonomy within the Kingdom and its clear call for voluntary return are signals that cannot be ignored in the regional diplomatic calculus. Still, it remains difficult to assess the collective’s exact representativeness compared with other factions, whose influence and independence are often hard to gauge. Moreover, the regional context, marked by tensions such as those between Mali and Algiers, contradictory interests, and major security challenges, continues to complicate rapid progress. In the meantime, those held in Tindouf camps continue to live in precarious conditions, underscoring the urgency of reinforced humanitarian action. Only Morocco’s proposed political framework ensures rights and respects the dignity of the affected populations. Balancing political settlement, strategic ambitions, and humanitarian urgency remains the key to unlocking this protracted issue, one whose resolution will largely shape the future stability of North Africa. It is in this context that upcoming Security Council debates on this artificial conflict, which has dragged on for far too long, should take place.

Moroccan Sahara: De Mistura's Statement, A Diplomatic Turning Point or a Headlong Rush 5568

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy for "Western" Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, made a statement in Italian, his most comfortable language for expressing emotions, that was remarkably frank. His tone, unusual for a diplomat, was direct and unambiguous. In essence, he said that the Moroccan Sahara conflict is not a "decolonization" issue but rather an indirect confrontation between Morocco and Algeria. He thus broke a diplomatic taboo and deconstructed a narrative sustained for fifty years with billions of dollars by a military regime from another era, which projects its frustrations and shortcomings onto this conflict. For the first time, a UN emissary publicly said what researchers, diplomats, and observers have been repeating behind closed doors for nearly half a century. Since the Green March in 1975, the Sahara question has been marked by two irreconcilable narratives. Morocco rightly considers this territory an integral part of its territorial integrity. History and geography prove this. This position is now supported by Washington, Paris, Madrid, London, most Arab countries, and nearly 110 other UN member states. Morocco, acting in good faith for decades, has spared no effort to find common ground with its eastern neighbor. Tired of Algeria's chronic and toxic animosity, Morocco proposed an autonomy plan for the region in 2007, within the framework of its sovereignty. Since then, nearly the entire international community views this proposal as the only feasible one. In reality, it is the only one on the table: the opposing party has never offered a credible solution apart from the partition of Morocco. Algeria, meanwhile, supports its proxy, the Polisario Front, militarily, diplomatically, and financially, while denying direct involvement in the conflict. Algeria continues to call for a self-determination referendum that has become unrealistic as demographic, political, and security balances have shifted. It is worth recalling that Algeria deliberately obstructed a referendum that King Hassan II himself had proposed. Until now, the UN had maintained a façade of neutrality, speaking of a "political process" under its aegis. But everyone knew that behind the polished phrases, this was a strategic power struggle between Rabat and Algiers. In this context, how should De Mistura’s comments be understood, if not as a calculated move ahead of a crucial Security Council meeting? This time, it came after several powers, notably the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, openly supported Morocco’s autonomy initiative. Two interpretations are possible: - Is it pressure on Algeria to publicly acknowledge its central role? De Mistura thus pushes Algeria to take responsibility and abandon its comfortable posture as a "mere observer." - Is it a recognition of impotence? The Italian diplomat implicitly acknowledges that the UN has failed to impose a solution, and that the outcome now depends on a political power balance within the Security Council. In either case, Algeria stands more contradictory than ever. For fifty years, Algiers has contributed to freezing the conflict, at great cost: - A lasting blockage of Maghreb integration, depriving North Africa of vital economic integration; - Eroding regional opportunities in energy, trade, and collective security; - A burden on the international community, with a UN mission (MINURSO) unable to fulfill its mandate, but whose funding and costs continue indefinitely. This policy has gradually isolated Algeria diplomatically, while Rabat gains increasing support, especially after the US recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory in 2020. Are we finally moving toward a historical clarification? The central question now is whether the Security Council is ready to take a step forward. Two options present themselves: - Fully endorse the Moroccan approach, recognizing the autonomy plan as the only serious negotiation basis; - Or maintain the diplomatic fiction of a decolonization process, risking prolonging a conflict that undermines the UN’s credibility and regional stability. By confronting Algeria with its responsibilities, De Mistura has changed the tone of the debate. Even if his gesture can be read as a sign of frustration or a last warning, it has the merit of bringing political reality back to the forefront. The future of Western Sahara no longer depends on technical reports or ambiguous language: it requires clear political will. Sooner or later, that will must end a costly historical anomaly in the Maghreb, Africa, and the world, which also weakens the credibility of the multilateral system. Staffan de Mistura has gone further than his predecessors. At the very least, he deserves the medal of candor. The Security Council will no longer read the question the same way and must change course, the wind has definitively turned.

Moroccan Policy in Africa: An Engaged and Unifying Dynamic 6710

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
Under the reign of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, Morocco pursues a proactive and inclusive African policy aimed at strengthening its economic, political, social, and cultural ties with the continent. This strategy favors pragmatic bilateralism, promoting African economic integration, south-south cooperation, and strategic partnerships. Agreements have been signed with over 40 African countries. Morocco’s return to the African Union in 2017 marked a major turning point in this strategy and became a true accelerator. The Kingdom is also interested in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as a growth driver. Among key projects in this perspective is the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline, stretching 5,600 km. It will connect West Africa to North Africa and transport around 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year. It will improve energy access for no less than 400 million people across 13 countries. This project fits within Morocco's energy transition strategy. Estimated at more than 25 billion dollars, it heralds major benefits for energy security and regional development through complementarity. Morocco is also strongly committed to education and skills training, offering nearly 15,000 scholarships annually to students from 49 countries. About 20,000 African students are welcomed each year in fields such as engineering, medicine, finance, and social sciences, thanks to the Moroccan Agency for International Cooperation (AMCI). This ambitious program aims to train a new generation of leaders and strengthens scientific and cultural exchanges. The Moroccan economy is well established in Africa, with over 1,000 companies active in banking, real estate, telecommunications, agriculture, and infrastructure sectors. Attijariwafa Bank, BMCE Bank of Africa, and Groupe Banque Populaire operate in more than 26 countries, generating hundreds of millions of dirhams in Sub-Saharan Africa. These institutions, with 45 subsidiaries and 4 branches, realize about 23% of their turnover on the continent, facilitating project financing and regional financial integration. Wafa Assurance and the Saham Group also strengthen this presence in numerous countries. The Moroccan health system, known for its modern infrastructure and skilled personnel, attracts thousands of Africans annually for various treatments, reinforcing human ties. Morocco also develops projects in sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, vocational training, and infrastructure, supported by the Mohammed VI Foundation for Sustainable Development. More than 60% of Moroccan foreign direct investment (FDI) targets Africa. Morocco’s trade with Africa remains modest compared to its total foreign trade: around 7 to 8%. However, this margin for growth is very large and promising. Trade volumes have significantly increased. In 2023, total trade volume between Morocco and African countries reached 52.7 billion dirhams, representing a 45% rise compared to 36 billion dirhams in 2013, with an average annual growth of about 10%. Maroc Telecom, active in 10 countries, serves approximately 54 million customers, contributing to digital integration. Groups such as Ynna Holding, Alliances, and Addoha lead major projects in several countries, notably housing and hospital construction. In agriculture, OCP Africa operates in 18 countries, training over 1.5 million farmers and providing fertilizers tailored to local soils and farming types. Its Agribooster program facilitates access to inputs, financing, and markets, boosting productivity and food security. OCP also invests in fertilizer blending and storage units across several countries and collaborates on innovative projects with USAID and the World Bank, including green ammonia production. SOMAGEC, a major Moroccan port operator, carries out projects in Equatorial Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, Benin, and Djibouti, employing thousands. Africa Motors, a subsidiary of Auto Hall, develops automotive production and distribution in partnership with Dongfeng for several African markets. Sport is also a cooperation lever: the Royal Moroccan Football Federation has signed more than 43 partnerships with African federations. Through its companies and projects, Morocco consolidates its key role in African development, based on solidarity, economic integration, and shared prosperity, eliciting both jealousy and recognition. Moroccan cooperation in Africa is a strategic pillar built on sharing expertise, economic development, and strengthening cultural ties. Thanks to its geographic and historic positioning, Morocco plays a major role in regional integration, supporting infrastructure, training, and innovation projects. This cooperation is characterized by a lasting commitment to promote peace, security, and sustainable development across Africa. The proposed opening-up of the Sahel countries through the future port of Dakhla will undoubtedly accelerate this integration for the benefit of hundreds of millions of Africans. The idea to build ports like Dakhla relies heavily on Morocco’s strategic geography. This is evident on the map: Morocco has a coastline of over 3,500 km, facing Europe, West Africa, and the Americas. Dakhla, in particular, lies halfway between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, making it a natural maritime waypoint. Morocco’s Atlantic coast is on the route linking the Mediterranean (via Gibraltar) to West Africa and the Americas, capturing a portion of global logistic flows. Morocco is less than 15 km from Europe at Gibraltar and simultaneously connected to West Africa. The port of Dakhla fits this logic: serving as a logistical and industrial hub between the two continents. The Dakhla area offers favorable natural conditions: deep waters and low swell, allowing the construction of a port capable of accommodating large ships, a rarity on the West African coast. With the Continental Free Trade Area, a port like Dakhla will allow Morocco to be an entry point for commercial flows to West Africa and beyond to Mali, Niger, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, and more. Morocco has understood this, as have its African partners. The future will be bright, hand in hand.

Green March, Algerian Plots, and International Diplomacy: The Sahara at the Heart of Contemporary History 6800

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The Moroccan Sahara, which became a Spanish colony in 1884, was liberated following the Green March, an unprecedented peaceful mobilization initiated by King Hassan II. The Kingdom had grown weary of the fruitless démarches undertaken at the UN before the Fourth Committee since its independence. Once the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was obtained, recognizing the existence, at the time of colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and the tribes living in the Sahara territory, Morocco took action. From November 6 to 9, 1975, 350,000 volunteers, armed only with the Quran and the national flag, marched toward the Sahara, symbolizing the popular will to reintegrate this territory, historically an integral part of Morocco’s sovereignty, just as the part attached by France to postcolonial Algeria. Several citizens from various nations took part in this epic. Since Kadhafi and Boumediene viewed this liberation, which reinforced Hassan II’s stature in Africa and worldwide, with hostility, they sponsored the Polisario, a movement claiming to liberate a supposed Sahrawi people. Quickly, the Polisario was heavily armed and supported by the pro-Soviet and communist regimes of the time, in the name of peoples’ liberation. The term “Spanish Sahara” disappeared, and even “Moroccan Sahara” vanished from discourse. Through clever propaganda, the duo imposed a new terminology: “Western Sahara.” In reality, Algeria sought to remove from the border dispute with the Kingdom the part of the Sahara it occupies. It must be recalled that during colonization, some areas of the Sahara were administratively attached to French Algeria. These originally Moroccan territories, called by France the “Southern Territories,” were not part of the three traditional Algerian departments: Algiers, Oran, and Constantine, but were under military administration. They were gradually taken from the Sharifian Empire’s territory. From 1902, these "Southern Territories" grouped several Saharan regions under French military control. This special arrangement lasted until 1957, when departmentalization was extended, but the Sahara remained under distinct management. These areas, administered within French Algeria, included all the regions now forming part of the Algerian Sahara. Morocco, refusing to negotiate border issues with France, had an agreement with the Algerian government-in-exile for the restitution of these zones after independence. Those who took power in Algiers at liberation dismissed the agreement outright. Thus, from 1975 onwards, a war, logistically supported by Kadhafi, Boumediene, Cuba, and others, was waged against Morocco, which was caught off guard by the enemy's army size. The UN then intervened, claiming to maintain peace in the region. True peace was only achieved in 1991 when Morocco reversed the power balance and captured thousands of Algerian soldiers and officers, including the well-known Said Chengriha. They were released thanks to mediation by Egypt, led by Hosni Mubarak, himself a former prisoner of the Moroccan army in 1963, sent by President Anwar Sadat, and above all due to Hassan II’s generosity, who never wanted to humiliate his defeated neighbor. The UN then created the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), with Morocco providing a demilitarized zone for its operation. Several envoys of the Secretary-General succeeded each other with the mission of bridging positions. All failed because in this matter, there is mostly bad faith, jealousy, intent to harm, and financial interests. In short, an artificial conflict. All resigned and went on to enjoy peaceful retirements. Since France abandoned Algeria to its fate, North Africa has never been peaceful. There was the Sand War against Morocco, led by Algeria and a coalition of Arab military regimes, and also the Algerian military invasion from the east where part of the Tunisian Sahara was taken. Hassan II told De Gaulle at the time that Algeria would become Africa’s cancer. This country was built on the blood of its martyrs, but their sacrifice was usurped by a military junta that endures and revels in perpetuating conflicts, notably regarding Morocco’s southern territories and, recently, with Mali. The last UN mediator, Staffan De Mistura, perhaps facing a deadlock, reportedly proposed an anachronistic solution: partition of the territory between Morocco and the Polisario. An idea that ignores the political, legal, and diplomatic reality, now largely consolidated in favor of Morocco. One wonders on which foot he got up that day. He could not have ignored that Morocco will never accept partition nor the establishment of a country under Algeria’s influence on its southern flank. Already forced to recognize Mauritania, Morocco will not make the same mistake again. Staffan De Mistura’s idea is totally out of step with international consensus. Three permanent members of the Security Council, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, Spain, the former occupying power, as well as nearly 120 other countries, have officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over "Western Sahara." Some have even established consulates there. This support is no accident but the result of a coherent diplomatic strategy, recognition of the Kingdom’s right to defend its territorial integrity, and successful efforts to integrate these provinces in a perspective of development and regional stability. Boutros Massad, special advisor to President Trump, unequivocally reminded Mr. Staffan De Mistura that only the Moroccan solution is acceptable. Proposing a partition amounts to circumventing this consensus by giving credit to a “mercenary” movement composed largely of foreigners and supported exclusively by Algeria. Rather than fostering peace, this approach perpetuates the status quo and risks a direct conflict between Morocco and Algeria, weakening the UN’s legitimacy as guarantor of respect for international law. Morocco has presented a credible alternative to this artificial conflict. Initiated in 2007, this project offers inhabitants wide political, administrative, and economic autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. This is already the case: almost all administrative and representative responsibilities are in their hands. The Polisario today faces a decisive turning point: accept this plan and hope to play a role, yet to be clarified, or reject the offer and risk isolation and disappearance without political gain. As for Algeria, it has already lost everything: billions of dollars and a losing cause. Its leaders will have to answer to the Algerian people.

Le Monde and Morocco: Deconstructing a Biased View of a Revered Monarchy... 7931

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The newspaper Le Monde, founded on the recommendation of General De Gaulle in the context of the Second World War in 1944, is internationally renowned for its investigative journalism and analytical capability. However, it often displays a biased approach when it focuses on the Kingdom of Morocco. The article published on August 24, 2025, titled "In Morocco, an atmosphere of end of reign for Mohammed VI," symptomatically illustrates this tendency, which deserves a response by also recalling the conflictual relationship the newspaper has had with the Kingdom almost since its inception. The impression is that it is probably the fact that Morocco is a Kingdom that bothers or disturbs the paper. The relationship to monarchy, particularly from the French left, is not unrelated to this ideological stance. For a long time, Le Monde's editorial coverage of Morocco has avoided neutrality. Since the time of Hassan II, the paper frequently adopted a critical tone, sometimes unjustly severe, offering a European reading framework that often reduced the complex Moroccan political reality to a caricature. Between interpretations disconnected from reality and unfounded insinuations, the treatment of the country has often been limited to a black-and-white vision, marginalizing the concrete nuances of its evolutions and its centuries-old history. It must be reminded that the Kingdom, as a nation-state, existed long before what is today called France. It therefore has its own codes and its own evolution and worldview. The newspaper's stance, inherited from a postcolonial reading marked by a basic socialism fixed on the image of an immutable authoritarian power and a society on the brink of upheaval. Journalists seem to relive by proxy the years before 1789. Conflations and romanticized interpretations are the rule. Returning to the article, would the King of Morocco be a misunderstood sovereign? Is the Kingdom, for its part, so little known to the journalists of "Le Monde"? Would the secular Moroccan people simply be a copy of the people of medieval France? Or is it simply an ideological stance blinding the paper? The mention of an "atmosphere of end of reign" in the recent article betrays profound ignorance coupled with a dubious hypothesis. In reality, no tangible sign of decline emerges, quite the opposite. The Moroccan people show notable attachment to their monarchy perceived as an essential pillar for stability, development, and national cohesion. A simple observation of social networks would have spared the authors from such errors, for since 1999, under the impetus of King Mohammed VI, Morocco has achieved important reforms. These are advances that took France two centuries. How can one forget to mention the country’s major achievements in such a short time: - Sustained economic growth in several strategic sectors, generating jobs and sustainable prospects. - Modernization of the family code (Moudawana), a symbol of major social progress, particularly regarding women's rights. - Adoption of a transitional justice policy favoring reconciliation and healing historical wounds. - Establishment of mandatory medical coverage, expanding access to healthcare for all. - Assertive diplomacy recognized on the African continent and internationally, demonstrating a well-thought-out, forward-looking strategy. - The Kingdom is preparing to host the Football World Cup, a sign of great trust from the international community. These successes, however glaring, are overlooked by the authors because they contradict a sensationalist narrative of monarchical decline which appeals to some French circles nostalgic, under the surface, for the monarchy they killed. The article recklessly mixes rumors, outdated clichés, and baseless hypotheses, portraying power as frozen, aging, and oppressive. The author consciously ignores the multifaceted reality of a country at the crossroads of ancient traditions and sustained modernization. The depiction of a "twilight" reign reflects a condescending gaze, reminiscent of dominant stereotypes that often reduce the Arab and African world to narratives of instability and decline. Contrary to the dark picture painted by Le Monde, contemporary Morocco under Mohammed VI pursues a dynamic trajectory, marked by concrete progress and real stakes, aligned with popular expectations. Rejection is not expressed through a distancing from the monarchy, but by a demand for thoughtful, gradual reforms that respect traditions and institutions. In this context, speaking of "end of reign" stems from a mistaken reading that distorts the actual function and role of monarchy today. Here, it is essential to claim rigorous journalism based on documentary research and pluralism, finally freeing itself from postcolonial reflexes and a condescending gaze. Morocco cannot be reduced to an exotic subject of study or a testing ground for imported scenarios. More than a relic, the monarchy embodies a central lever of a nation in motion, led by lucid and committed leadership. Le Monde’s editorial past seems to weigh heavily on its analysis of current events in Morocco. By assertively stating an "atmosphere of end of reign," the article disconnects its diagnosis from the social, economic, and political realities shaping the Kingdom. The achievements show a sincere will to articulate traditions and modernity, stability and popular aspirations, in a difficult regional environment that the country has managed with discernment. By omitting these elements, favoring unfounded rumors and finished stereotypes, the text promotes an alarmist narrative that harms both truth and constructive dialogue, feeding prejudices inherited from an outdated postcolonial vision. Thus, far from a predicted decline, Morocco traces a path based on conscientious leadership, rooted in a millennia-old history and attentive to current challenges, looking towards a hopeful future. It is time for Le Monde to renew its gaze with honesty and respect, going beyond clichés and integrating the diversity of the Moroccan voice. The arrogance of an external view must never outweigh lived reality. Readers of this newspaper, as with others when it comes to Morocco, deserve balanced, non-partisan, and open information reflecting the richness and depth of a society and a Kingdom in full transformation, faithful to its institutions and its sovereign.

Ukraine and Sudan: Two Conflicts, Two Different Perspectives... 7711

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The entire Western world gathered in Washington a few days ago. Since his return, President Trump has been trying to save what remains of Ukraine, and the Europeans genuinely do not want this to happen behind their backs. Unable to play a decisive role, they at least want to be present. Their credibility is at stake, and above all, their image before the rest of the world. Overheated by a Europe whose reach exceeds its power—a Europe increasingly powerless—Ukraine has endured and waged a war it believed it could win with Western support. To date, it has lost 20% of its territory, and it is far from over. Instead of dealing directly with Vladimir (Putin), Volodymyr (Zelensky) thought it wiser to seek support from those who had already been insufficient since delegating their defense to NATO, and thus to the United States. The Europeans will learn this the hard way: one cannot wage war without the means to do so. That same world remains silent about what is happening in Sudan. It is considered less “interesting.” Two generals, generals in name only, have launched a militarized competition to seize power, just days after signing an agreement to share it. Since then, the situation has deteriorated. Every day, lives are lost, women are raped, and millions of people wander the desert, their only refuge. For the Western world, perhaps—I emphasize perhaps—they are just Africans, mostly believing themselves Arabs, killing each other. The war in Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region, remains one of the most tragic and deadly conflicts since its outbreak in April 2023. This war mainly pits two rival forces against each other: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti,” former leader of the Janjaweed militias. The latter, along with their allied Arab militias, are responsible for massive massacres, especially targeting the Massalit people and other non-Arab groups in Darfur. In essence, those who consider themselves Arab are killing and driving from their lands those they do not recognize as their own. The BBC has just released an investigation and documentary on this subject, which should stir collective conscience, if any human conscience remains willing to watch. The conflict is primarily a power struggle between the two military leaders who, it should be recalled, had signed a pact to govern the country jointly. The sudden slide into armed clashes has spread to several regions, notably Darfur, where the RSF and their allies stand accused of grave abuses. The Janjaweed, militias identifying as Arab and formerly supported by former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, are active again under the RSF banner, committing ethnic-based violence openly. Also involved are the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA/SLM), the historic rebels of Darfur, fragmented between Minni Minnawi and Abdelwahid Mohamed al-Nur. The scale of the massacres is terrifying. According to the UN, in Al-Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, between 10,000 and 15,000 Massalit civilians were killed between June and November 2023 by the RSF and allied Arab militias. More broadly, over 150,000 have died in two years throughout Darfur, with 13 million displaced—half the Sudanese population—pushed to the brink of famine. NGOs like Doctors Without Borders warn of imminent massacres in cities such as El-Fasher, heavily besieged. The violence also includes destruction of civil infrastructure, schools, and mosques. Systematic sexual violence is another tragic facet of the massacre. Following a deadly attack a few days ago, Doctors Without Borders just closed the only hospital still operating in Zalengei, the regional capital, making any medical activity impossible. This is not the first hospital to be forced to shut down. Despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the international response remains mostly ineffective. Although the United States and the UN officially acknowledge the severity of the genocide, their direct interventions and sanctions remain timid. The African Union and the UN struggle to deploy forces capable of enforcing peace and upholding international law. Arab countries exert no notable pressure on Hemedti or Burhan, the latter having long wielded significant influence in Sudan. This silence is interpreted by many observers as complicity, seen as a form of institutional racism that devalues African lives, especially those of the Massalit victims of the RSF. The fact that Hemedti and his allies claim an “Arab” identity while attacking so-called “African” groups, according to some, contributes to the indifference of Arab nations, more preoccupied with their regional dynamics than human rights. International Muslim organizations have also failed to take a forceful stand, despite frequent religious instrumentalization by the warring parties. The conflict is also marked by a profound religious contradiction: murder, injustice, and war among Muslims are explicitly condemned by Islam, except in cases of self-defense or struggle against oppression. Yet, the massacres in Darfur are regularly denounced as contrary to these principles by Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders, though these condemnations have had little tangible effect on the violence. This crisis has triggered the world’s largest current humanitarian emergency, with 13 million displaced. Access to medical care, food, and shelter remains grossly insufficient. Civilians live in extreme insecurity, caught in ethnic and political struggles manipulated by power-hungry warlords. The international community, Arab countries, and Muslim actors appear to be shirking their responsibilities, allowing this tragedy to continue in alarming silence. This situation challenges not only global collective conscience but also the real capacity of international institutions to protect the most vulnerable populations from such vast violence. The situation in Darfur and greater Sudan is a stark and urgent call for attention. The hope remains that the wars in both Ukraine and Sudan will end swiftly, as in both cases it is innocent generations paying the price of violent conflict.

Greater Israel: A Threat to Peace and Stability... 8202

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The past few weeks have been marked by rather disturbing statements from certain Israeli leaders, reigniting the fundamental debate around the borders of the Hebrew state. Since its creation in 1948, following a UN decision, Israel has never officially and permanently defined its borders—a unique situation that undermines regional stability as well as the credibility of international law. This absence of clear demarcation has severe consequences for a climate already marked by deep mistrust, both within the region and beyond. This situation is often exploited by those who do not stop calling Israel a "cancer" in the region. Unlike the majority of states, Israel did not specify its borders in its declaration of independence. The lines recognized internationally today are those of the 1949 armistice, known as the "Green Line," but they have been constantly altered by wars and territorial expansions, notably after the Six-Day War in 1967. Since that date, Israel has occupied the West Bank, annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, while Gaza Strip, occupied and then evacuated in 2005, remains subjected to strict control. Following recent developments consequent to October 7 and Israel’s disproportionate response, the current government no longer hides its intention to proceed with a new annexation. These recent declarations revive tensions, notably with references to "biblical borders." There is only one possible interpretation here: the outright annexation of the West Bank and a direct threat to neighboring countries. Statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister Smotrich, and other coalition members demonstrate a desire to maintain confusion, especially as ultranationalist voices continue to invoke the notion of "Greater Israel." This concept, based on religious texts, encompasses territories far beyond internationally recognized borders, potentially extending over the West Bank and even parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. This is all the more worrying as this position faces only ineffective or inaudible denunciations from Arab countries, weakened by repeated divisions and contradictions within Palestinian ranks, exhausted by the sabotage of initiatives on both sides, and aggravated by the barely disguised interventionism of Iran, which has succeeded in bribing a Palestinian faction that weakens the cause, undermining any possibility of peace. This faction, so radicalized, has become an objective ally of Israel and is labeled a terrorist group. Simultaneously, there is the complicit inaction of Western countries, who plead only half-heartedly against various abuses. Underlying this is an anachronistic construction, a 19th-century invention aimed at masking centuries of Christian antisemitism—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant: Judeo-Christianity. This striking conflation serves to oppose Western civilization to the rest of the world, notably the so-called Arab world. By this conflation, at least in appearance, a hatred that has persisted since the first Christian martyr Stephen, stoned by the Pharisees, is buried. A hatred that has never ceased. Faced with this imbroglio, there is nothing but the chronic impotence of the UN. The question of respect for international law and the definition of Israel’s borders should pose a major challenge to Western powers, especially the United States. Historically, the UN was at the origin of Israel’s creation with Resolution 181 of 1947, but today it proves powerless against the country’s expansion and voluntary absence of border delimitation. Resolution 242, demanding withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, has never been implemented, just like all resolutions involving the Hebrew state. Western countries, though allies of Israel and holders of significant leverage, have so far refused to compel Israel to comply with international norms, limiting themselves to diplomatic calls for the resumption of negotiations and recognition of a Palestinian state, especially since the beginning of this summer. To this, Israeli leaders respond with categorical refusal and an intermingling of antisemitism with opposition to or criticism of a government’s politics. For the current government, there is no room for maneuver: either one accepts the Israeli diktat, even when it involves violations of international law and denial of Palestinians’ human rights, or one is antisemitic. People forget that Palestinians are Semites too... This generates deplorable tensions with unfortunate consequences for many countries, as De Gaulle might have said. If not stopped, these recent developments will undoubtedly increase the risk to global stability. Until now, popular dissent in the region has been controlled, even prohibited, but for how long? The absence of recognized borders and the normalization of using religious narratives to legitimize possession of illegitimate lands constitute a direct threat to regional and global stability. To dare evoke "Greater Israel" is to legitimize expansionist aspirations, stir fear among neighbors, and fuel instability. In his recent speeches, the Israeli Foreign Minister does not hesitate to present the possibility of a Palestinian state as an existential threat to Israel. The current government does not want a Palestinian state, which remains the only foreseeable and logical solution for Israel’s very security, while maintaining ambiguity over territorial outlines can only perpetuate the conflict and block all prospects for lasting peace. Beyond the strategic and religious considerations, it falls to the international community, particularly Western countries, to take responsibility and finally demand that Israel define its borders in accordance with international law, as is the case for every other state. Without this perspective, any political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain a dead letter, with the ongoing risk of global conflagration. Israeli citizens must also take their responsibility. Continuing to vote for extremists is in no way a guarantee of security but rather a threat to the future of the children on both sides, even though a life in peace is possible. Many Israelis know this and shout it with all their might, but their calls remain unheard. It is with them that peace must be built, and they are numerous within Israel itself and across the world, particularly in the United States.