Think Forward.

World Politics

The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (CAN) vs FIFA: Should Africa Always Settle for a Secondary Role? 267

Aziz Daouda, 1 d.
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... 483

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
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... 937

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
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... 1375

Aziz Daouda, 10 d.
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... 2092

Aziz Daouda, 16 d.
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... 2319

Aziz Daouda, 18 d.
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... 2426

Aziz Daouda, 20 d.
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 3082

Aziz Daouda, 26 d.
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... 2953

Aziz Daouda, 28 d.
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... 3303

Aziz Daouda, 1 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... 3651

Aziz Daouda, 1 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 4546

Tariq Daouda, 2 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? 4420

Aziz Daouda, 2 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… 4283

Aziz Daouda, 2 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 4004

Aziz Daouda, 2 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 4351

Aziz Daouda, 3 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 5439

Aziz Daouda, 3 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 5477

Aziz Daouda, 3 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... 6506

Aziz Daouda, 3 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... 6274

Aziz Daouda, 3 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... 6478

Aziz Daouda, 3 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.

N’Djamena-Kousséri Half Marathon: A Message for the UN and Everyone Working for Peace in the World 6648

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
Next September, more precisely on the 6th, an exceptional half marathon race will bring together the people of Kousséri, Cameroon, and N'Djamena, the capital of Chad. The athletes will start in front of the N’Djamena city hall and head towards Kousséri’s town hall, crossing the border between the two countries without any customs checkpoint or stop. On the contrary, authorities from both countries are collaborating to ensure that runners are supervised and secured on both sides under the best possible conditions. This will already be the third edition of this unprecedented race. This sporting event, largely sponsored by the African Athletics Confederation, goes beyond simple competition: it embodies a powerful symbol of rapprochement and reunification of the peoples of Central Africa, highlighting the deep human dimension of such an initiative. Indeed, the populations on both sides of the border share so much in common that this administrative boundary, a colonial legacy, cannot separate them. The strength of sport as a vector of unity is a slogan and a value we repeat on every occasion. But how many sporting events can truly embody it on the same scale as this unique race in the world? Sport, by its universal nature, has the rare power to transcend cultural, political, and social barriers. But here, this is the only sporting event where it transcends borders. In the border region between Cameroon and Chad, it is actually one and the same people who live here. Circumstances have made them two populations belonging to two different countries. On both sides of the border, people share history, traditions, and common challenges. In this context, which is not unique to this central African region, this half marathon represents far more than a simple endurance challenge. It is a bridge between communities often separated by artificial borders inherited from the colonial past. Running together, across spaces that connect these two neighboring cities, symbolizes the will to overcome historical divisions. Every step is an invitation to solidarity, mutual understanding, and the celebration of shared values such as respect, brotherhood, and peace. Kousséri and N'Djamena, though geographically close, have often been distanced by political tensions or administrative differences. But on the ground, in the heart of this race, the differences fade away. Runners, whether amateurs or professionals, from here or abroad since the race is international, share the same goal: moving forward together. This sporting initiative also allows the meeting of communities, families, youth, local leaders, and institutional actors from both countries. It encourages cultural, economic, and social exchanges, paving the way for more sustainable partnerships and regional stability. Here is a genuine message of hope for peace and reconciliation that the UN should hold up as an example, especially in the face of those who waste fortunes on endless conflicts. Examples are abundant... The Kousséri-N'Djamena half marathon sends a clear and inspiring message: despite borders and differences, it is possible to build human bridges, consolidate lasting peace based on mutual understanding and cooperation. In a world where ethnic and political conflicts often divide peoples, these moments of sporting gathering illustrate the power of dialogue and reconciliation. They express deep humanism, where each step taken on the ground is a step toward fraternization, toward rapprochement, toward a shared future. Beyond athletic performance, the half marathon between Kousséri and N'Djamena on September 6th is a true celebration of human unity. By bringing together peoples with close origins yet sometimes divided, it invites reflection on our ability to overcome the borders that separate us to prioritize what should unite us: brotherhood, peace, and hope for a better world. **The Human Dimension of Rapprochement and Reunification of Peoples finds a true embodiment in the N’Djamena-Kousséri Half Marathon, Bridge of Hope.** For those who understand, greetings.

Confiscated Freedoms: El Harrach and Tindouf, Two Faces of the Same Oppression... 7261

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
It was while reading, moved, the heartbreaking letter from Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, addressed ultimately to everyone, that the idea for these few lines came to me. In this letter, written from El-Harrach prison, Sansal fiercely denounces the political repression and arbitrary incarceration imposed by the Algerian regime. This denunciation quickly made me think of the tragic situation of the population confined by the same regime for nearly fifty years in the Tindouf camps in Algeria. My thoughts wandered randomly between the zealots who are there, like my high school friend Sadati, bearers of a chimera; those who stay there without even knowing why; those who have aged there; those buried there; and those born there. It is on these last that my thoughts particularly lingered. The Tindouf camps shelter a few thousand young people born in exile, rather exposed where their parents ultimately did not choose to be, under extremely harsh conditions. For many, they are not even originally from the coveted lands nor bear any claim. They mainly depend on humanitarian aid, live in total precariousness, and see their well-being deteriorate, while those living just a few miles away enjoy abundance, comfort, and rights. They did not ask to be there and dream, like all their peers, of a better life, which truly exists on the other side. Unlike a traditional prison with visible walls, like El Harrach, the Tindouf camps are an open-air prison, a constrained space where these youths are held without trial, without hope of freedom, nor any possibility of returning to their homeland—not by their own choice, but that of their jailers. The common point between El Harrach and Tindouf: the sordid game of a military regime from another era. This prolonged situation strikingly evokes the deprivation of freedom suffered by the detainees of Tindouf and the Algerian political prisoners Boualem Sansal describes in his letter. Both embody the same silenced voice, the same hope confiscated by the whims of officers who only carry the name, and by a military caporalism that, since 1962, continuously invents enemies, uses torture, repression, and deprivation of fundamental rights to maintain its grip on one of the richest countries in the world. This regime has stifled all democratic expression, from annulling election results to the spectacular assassination, broadcast live on television, of President Mohamed Boudiaf, sending a message of terror to the whole people. Recently, it brazenly repressed the peaceful Hirak protests and imprisoned their leaders. This regime no longer hesitates to mistreat even its most loyal servants. Randomly, prime ministers, ministers, high dignitaries, businessmen, generals, and journalists, even foreigners, find themselves subjected to quick trials where only the voice of their master resounds. They end up in the same prison, the famous El Harrach. In his letter, Sansal expresses the physical and moral pain of a man imprisoned for having evoked history, dared to defend justice and dignity. His words carry the voice of all those whom the regime seeks to silence. This captive voice painfully echoes the fate of the youngsters held in Tindouf, also deprived of their most basic freedoms and condemned to endless waiting in a desert environment, hostile and hopeless. Far from being a mere analogy, this comparison reveals a universal reality: whether behind bars or in the vast inhospitable desert, deprivation of freedom, forced exile, and broken hope remain the instruments of relentless political oppression. For these youths, the "march through an endless desert" is both a physical ordeal marked by extreme poverty, scorching heat, and isolation, and a metaphor for their quest for identity, dream of regaining their freedom, and joining the motherland. Beyond denunciation, in his letter, Sansal makes a solemn appeal to France, asking it not to sacrifice its values on the altar of mercantile contingencies. The same appeal is addressed to the international community, on behalf of the young detainees of Tindouf, so that human rights principles are not sacrificed on the altar of geopolitical interests. This appeal is all the more relevant facing the situation of these youths, many of whom are not even originally from the Moroccan Sahara but are still imprisoned in a situation of exile and oblivion. Thus, behind two different walls, a prison cell and undocumented, unrecognized refugee camps, lies the same tragedy: human beings reduced to waiting, to deprivation of liberty, and to a silent struggle not to disappear. This convergence highlights the urgency of strong humanitarian and political action to end these imprisonments so that freedom of thought, of living, and of deciding one’s own destiny is never again captured by an oppressive political machine, devised and implemented by an anachronistic military staff. Thank you, sir, for awakening in me this fiber of compassion, even pity, for young people who deserve to live a better future. I take here again Boualem Sansal’s words, which I address to the youth imprisoned in Tindouf: *"Fear is a prison larger than the one where I find myself, and it is harder to break. But I know that one day, the wall will fall. Dictators always end up falling."* Youth of Tindouf, You will break the barbed wire, you will cross the checkpoints to return home by the strength of your character and the power of your will. Your country, that of your ancestors, the Kingdom of Morocco, awaits you; the future opens its arms to you; life will smile upon you for eternity, you will taste freedom there, the joy of living, of building yourself and of ensuring a happy future for your children. Your dreams will come true there and your ambitions will be realized. You will be the continuation of your ancestors in a diverse and powerful nation as it has been for centuries. You will help enrich humanity by your knowledge, your creativity, your genius. You just have to dare.

A Last Chance: The King of Morocco’s Message to Algeria on the Sahara Issue... 14132

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
His Majesty the King's speech, delivered on July 28, 2025, on the occasion of the Throne Day, carries particular significance in a diplomatic context that is admittedly new but has been developing for a long time. The recent circumstances are marked by the tour of Massad Boulos, father of one of Donald Trump’s sons-in-law and special envoy of the President to the region. These circumstances are further highlighted by the remarks before the U.S. Congress of the newly appointed ambassador to Rabat, who is very close to the President. Richard Duke Buchan III did not mince words: the Sahara is Moroccan. He knows the region well, having been ambassador to Spain. This situation says a lot about the current dynamics of the conflict over the Moroccan Sahara and about Algeria’s troubled stance on this issue. In his widely followed speech, eagerly awaited and well-reported by Moroccans due to the rarity of His Majesty's words, the King of Morocco emphasizes the repeated "outstretched hand" offered by Rabat. He stresses the brotherhood between the Moroccan and Algerian peoples while underlining the constancy of his position. The goal is to exert moral and diplomatic weight, presenting an image of responsibility and openness while implicitly denouncing Algerian obstruction. This rhetoric effectively offers a way out for Algeria, which is becoming isolated on the international stage. Addressing the Algerian people, His Majesty essentially calls them to witness. By explicitly highlighting growing support for his proposal, notably recent backing by the United Kingdom and Portugal, His Majesty sends a message with a dual meaning: *- Morocco enjoys increasing support for its autonomy proposal, which legitimizes its position broadly supported by the West, the Arab world, the majority of African countries, and others; - At the same time, Algeria is becoming increasingly diplomatically isolated, as confirmed by the awkward silence regarding the Sahara issue in official statements, especially after the American special envoy’s visit.* The speech disregards the new realities and moves directly to a constructive proposal for dialogue within a fraternal framework. On the other side, the absence of any mention of Western Sahara in Algerian official statements following Boulos’s meeting with President Tebboune is particularly telling. Added to this is the recent statement by the Lebanese president, made in the presence of Tebboune and his close entourage in the heart of Algerian power. He thanked the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Morocco for their involvement in resolving the political crisis in his country, without a word about the Sahara. The tone of Joseph Aoun’s voice is grating to the aligned guards. Faces are tense. This reflects either a political unwillingness or inability of Algeria to publicly address this subject under international pressure, except in the presence of marginal countries. There is also an embarrassment or divergence between the regional political reality and Algerian diplomatic communication. The fact that the American special envoy continues his tour, with a clear mission, according to Trump, "to end this artificial conflict," demonstrates international determination to promote a resolution favoring Morocco’s proposal. At least, this can be inferred from Trump’s letter to His Majesty on the occasion of the Throne Day. Are we nearing a scenario similar to the resolution of the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC? His Majesty the King’s renewed call can be seen as a last resort, a final offer of appeasement: an opportunity for Algeria to step down from its stubborn stance without losing face, relying on a credible and internationally accepted proposal. Morocco has shown both patience and firmness. The next step now depends on Algeria’s choice. Unfortunately, instead of an official response, the Algerian authorities have communicated indirectly through media channels, some of whose outrageous remarks are perplexing. They even claim that the King of Morocco eventually threw in the towel in the face of Algeria’s intransigence. The lifeline extended by the King to a languishing regime is perceived as a mere sponge by the very one who needs it. A pity. Algeria now faces its contradictions, confronted with a complex constraint. Continuing to support the Polisario means further entrenchment and a risky isolation, both regionally and internationally, with an even greater threat of political weakening internally. The country suffers from an unprecedented economic crisis, limiting, due to a lack of foreign currency, imports that are vital to the economy and the people. Recurring electricity and especially water cuts in several regions add to the difficulties. The dilapidated state of cities is perplexing. Tebboune’s reassuring talks do not lessen the bitterness of the population. Heeding Morocco’s call would allow Algeria to reposition itself politically without losing face; explicitly refusing dialogue is increasingly costly and diplomatically unsustainable. Algeria risks sinking into a crisis that benefits neither its international credibility nor regional stability, and even less its domestic stability. The involvement of the American special envoy in the region, the discretion regarding the Sahara case in Algerian communiqués, and the King of Morocco’s speech all point to the same reality: the status quo can no longer continue. The generous and wise royal appeal is indeed a last chance offered to Algeria to escape the deadlock, avoid international political embarrassment, and preserve some dignity for its leaders. By opting for dialogue, Algiers would also save face internally, with a population that has been fed a hatred of the Kingdom for five decades and sacrificed for a cause that brought only misery and disappointment. What does the population feel when it sees mercenaries occupying part of its territory, parading at its expense, pretending to lead a bogus “republic”? The international context, with major actors clearly engaged for a pragmatic resolution, reduces Algeria’s room for maneuver. Will Algeria seize this opportunity to redirect its policy, or will it continue a costly and potentially harmful strategy? In that case, there will be only one loser: Algeria. The regional and international momentum is accelerating every day in favor of the Moroccan proposal. This is the meaning , and only the meaning, that should be given to the Throne Day speech of the King of Morocco.

When Christopher Nolan Illuminates Dakhla, Dakhla Enhances His Film... 13872

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
- World Politics - Art -
2.5 min read.
Christopher Nolan has just finished shooting part of his upcoming film, *The Odyssey*, in Dakhla, a gem of southern Morocco. It is a cinematic adaptation of the epic of Ulysses. Among the chosen shooting locations is the spectacular White Dune, located about thirty kilometers from Dakhla — an exceptional natural setting blending white sand and turquoise lagoon — which greatly contributed to the film’s visual richness. This Hollywood blockbuster features a prestigious cast: Matt Damon plays Ulysses, alongside Zendaya, Charlize Theron, Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, Anne Hathaway, and Lupita Nyong’o. The worldwide release of the film is scheduled for July 15, 2026. Before setting up cameras in Dakhla, Nolan’s team had filmed sequences in Ouarzazate, notably at the Ksar Aït Ben Haddou, as well as in Italy. Originally, Nolan considered locations such as Bermuda or Australia for some maritime scenes, but ultimately chose southern Morocco, recognized for the diversity and quality of its natural landscapes. The shoot in Dakhla is widely seen as a great opportunity for the city and for Morocco, boosting their visibility on the international film scene while promoting the local film industry. But who is Christopher Nolan in the world of cinema? In 2024, he won two major Oscars: Best Director and Best Picture for *Oppenheimer* (2023). He also received an honorary César for his entire career, the BAFTA for Best Director, as well as several other prestigious awards such as the Golden Globes and the Directors Guild of America Awards, all for *Oppenheimer*. This brief overview proves that Nolan is no ordinary figure in the film industry — he is one of the greatest filmmakers in the world. However, this production sparked some controversy and unfounded criticism lacking rigor. The media outlet Middle East Eye dedicated an article condemning the shooting in Dakhla, adopting a selective and victimizing tone, relying on a rhetoric of “decolonization” and supposed “indigenous voices.” This critique, riddled with historical inaccuracies and an obvious bias, reveals either a deep ignorance of the history and physical and human geography of these regions or a deliberate will to distort reality for some ulterior motive... The filming took place in a peaceful and stable city, equipped with modern infrastructure, where Moroccan sovereignty is indisputable. It is probably this stability that troubles some, especially because it highlights the Kingdom’s successes in this region of its territory, contrasting sharply with the difficult situation caused by the Polisario Front, which, under its tutelage, has brought nothing but despair and a lack of dignity to populations held hostage in the Tindouf camps for nearly 50 years. While Middle East Eye accuses Morocco of “cultural normalization,” the article omits mentioning that Algeria exerts a true occupation over the Sahrawis held captive in the camps of shame, where they are a minority compared to the Sahrawis in Morocco, and have neither freedom of movement, nationality, nor an independent press. They don’t even benefit from refugee status, with the United Nations prevented by the host country from registering them. The real question remains: who is the true colonizer in this context? The Sahrawis, who are the majority and live in Moroccan Sahara, enjoy a significantly higher standard of living than the populations in the Tindouf camps — or even compared to those in the host country overall. They participate in democratic processes, govern their communes, towns, and regions, engage in the political life of the Kingdom, hold positions of responsibility at all levels of government, create businesses, run associations, travel freely, and produce cultural works enriching their country. Their children attend quality schools and universities. They receive care in top-tier hospitals and do not need a media outlet to speak for them. In reality, this article has nothing to do with serious journalism but rather reflects nostalgia for reversed colonialism and an outdated neo-Orientalist vision. It is an ideological staging orchestrated by a group of European activists using the Sahrawis as instruments of propaganda that has been seen before, and that is, frankly, absurd. The goal here is neither peace nor real autonomy, but the perpetuation of artificial resentment in service of their chimera of an independent Sahrawi state — a state that will never exist. Meanwhile, the *The Odyssey* shooting team, satisfied with the quality of reception, assistance, and support from the Moroccan authorities and the work accomplished, has indeed returned to the USA aboard a Royal Air Maroc plane chartered for the occasion. Let us hope Christopher Nolan will not take long before returning with another project and that the beauty of the images in his film will encourage other major filmmakers worldwide to come to Dakhla to elevate their upcoming works.

Jacob Zuma’s Visit to Morocco Sparks Diplomatic Shake-up Over Moroccan Sahara Conflict 14024

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
The visit of Jacob Zuma to the Kingdom of Morocco triggered a desperate diplomatic response from the Polisario Front in South Africa, marking a significant political upheaval around the Moroccan Sahara conflict. Since then, the Polisario and its patron have shown nervousness reflecting a loss of influence even in African regions previously aligned with separatist positions. But who is this man whose words have caused such turmoil and dismay? Jacob Zuma is a South African statesman. He is a former anti-apartheid fighter imprisoned for ten years on the notorious Robben Island. Supported by the African National Congress (ANC), he rose through political ranks to become Vice-President of South Africa from 1999 to 2005, then President from 2009 to 2018, succeeding Thabo Mbeki. Zuma also served as ANC president from 2007 to 2017. Despite legal troubles and leaving the presidency, he maintains serious political weight, notably through the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party he now leads, which became the third-largest political force in South Africa after the May 2024 elections. Therefore, Zuma is not just any South African speaking on such an important issue for the continent and world. On July 15, 2025, in Rabat, on behalf of himself and the MK party, Zuma took an unambiguous stance supporting Morocco, breaking with Pretoria's relatively recent official line. He called Morocco's autonomy proposal a "pragmatic and balanced solution," guaranteeing Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces while offering substantial local governance to the populations. This position, officially supported by MK, represents a dramatic turnaround in South Africa and the region. Until now, South Africa backed the puppet Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and the Polisario Front, framed as pan-African solidarity against colonization, consistent with Algeria's ideological stance. The argument for separatism artificially tied to Morocco's southern provinces ignores that Spanish colonization in this integral part of the Cherifian Empire lasted about 91 years (1884–1975), when Spain declared a protectorate over the Western Sahara region and governed it until its 1975 withdrawal under the Madrid Agreement with Morocco. Since Nelson Mandela's death, South Africa had quickly sided with Algeria's vision of an independent state between Mauritania and Morocco, overlooking Morocco's historic support for South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle. In reaction to Zuma's recent statements in Rabat, where he explicitly supported Morocco's autonomy plan for Western Sahara, the Polisario swiftly sent its Foreign Minister Mohamed Yeslem Beissat to Pretoria. This move comes amid tense diplomacy and a major shift in South African policy on the formerly Spanish Sahara. Until then, all political forces in the country were aligned with the government’s position. Panicked, the Polisario dispatched a delegation led by Beissat, who knows the field well after years representing the entity, officially invited by the ANC under Cyril Ramaphosa to attend a "liberation movements summit" in Pretoria from July 25 to 28. This summit, themed "Defending liberation gains, promoting integrated socio-economic development, and strengthening solidarity for a better Africa," also gathers other supporters of similar causes like Palestinian Jebril Rajoub, allied with Algeria and Polisario. The event, organized by the South African embassy in Algiers, aims solely to back separatist positions and offer support. The ANC quickly condemned Zuma's support for Western Sahara's Moroccan sovereignty on principle, accusing him of betrayal and dissidence after his split from the party. However, not all ANC factions still adhere strictly to Ramaphosa's official line. Many ANC leaders now recognize that siding with Algeria’s unproductive position has been a significant loss for their country. The influence of Zuma, a powerful political figure, has forced the Polisario and its patron to coordinate their response amid the new diplomatic dynamics intensified by his backing of Morocco. This diplomatic earthquake happens as several African states have progressively withdrawn recognition of the SADR in favor of the Moroccan plan, potentially further isolating the Polisario and Algeria continentally. During his visit, Zuma reminded the historical role Morocco played in the anti-apartheid struggle, seemingly lamenting his country's unexpected post-Mandela shift. He advocated for a strategic alliance based on respecting African states' territorial integrity, moving away from separatist support—a pragmatic stance shared by many South African officials. A rapprochement between Morocco and South Africa, the only African countries with truly industrial and diversified economies, could benefit both powers and the continent as a whole. The era of imported ideologies serving as democratic facades for military dictatorships is over and no longer effective. Thus, the Polisario minister’s visit to Pretoria appears a desperate attempt to limit the impact of a shift that could deeply transform political balances in Southern Africa and accelerate Morocco’s strengthening continental and international position

Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Spanish Radical Left's Controversial Stance on Moroccan Sahara... 13892

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
I confess here that it was the writings of Si Lahcen Hadad that pushed me to take a closer interest in this Spanish left, which positions itself in opposition to the Sánchez government, which is itself left-wing. Not reading Spanish, I am therefore somewhat less inclined to pay attention to the repeated ignominies of this left, sick from not being able to access power, sick from its aborted history, sick from what it actually is. So, to exist, it invented a cause. Too bad if it understands nothing about it, too bad if it harms Spain’s interests, too bad if it distorts history, ignores geography and demography, too bad if its reasoning, if it is reasoning at all, is far from logical, too bad if it lies outrageously. The important thing is to exist and to appear to the Spanish public as the defender of the causes of the most deprived... No matter if those people harmed the Spanish people; no matter if they have Spanish blood on their hands. Manifest bad faith. In Spain, therefore, a significant part of the radical left, mainly represented by formations such as Unidas Podemos, an alliance between Podemos, Izquierda Unida, and other minority groups, maintains a posture—let’s say critical, if not belligerent—towards the Kingdom of Morocco. This contradictory position is fed by a historical prism marked by colonial memory, “anti-imperialist” struggles, but also by the question of the Sahara, called the "Spanish Sahara" until 1975, as it was a former territory under Spanish domination until the Green March in 1975. This radical left considers Morocco a belligerent and threatening actor. The debate is not limited to territorial disputes: it fits into an ideological vision where the Moroccan state is often presented as an authoritarian and repressive regime, described as a neocolonial power. This is what underpins the repeated support for the artificial Sahrawi cause, presented as an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fight. Support for the Polisario Front thus seems embedded in the DNA of these “gauchos,” regardless of developments. Historically, several components of the Spanish left have expressed clear support for the Polisario Front, founded in 1973, which was nevertheless supported by Gaddafi, then hosted, supplied, and armed by the Algerian regime with the aim of harming Morocco’s interests. This support manifests itself in various forms: - Filing parliamentary motions in defense of the right to self-determination for this small part of the Sahara alone; - Participation in international pro-Polisario forums and associative networks that blindly support it, regardless of reports on the embezzlement of aid, rapes, and flagrant human rights abuses in Tindouf; - Pressure on the Spanish government and European institutions to recognize the political status of the Sahara, neglecting to mention that it was formerly occupied by their country, as a territory to be decolonized, in opposition to Morocco’s historical sovereignty. Even the autonomy proposal, well known in Spain, does not seem to satisfy them. However, it should be noted that this support comes in a context of strong internal contestation in Spain. Since the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez expressed its support in 2022 for the Moroccan autonomy plan, this radical position has somewhat fractured. This change reflects a pragmatic adaptation by some to the geopolitical, economic, and migratory realities that closely link the two countries. Faced with challenges related to managing migratory flows through the occupied enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as security and economic cooperation with the Kingdom of Morocco, the Spanish government has refocused its diplomacy. This has led to a gradual distancing of the left—but not the radical left—from the Polisario, thus marginalizing its influence on official policy. In this context, some voices within the radical left still try to persuade European institutions to keep pressure on Morocco, demanding that the so-called Western Sahara remain central to priorities to resolve an “unresolved colonial conflict.” Parliamentary groups and “pro-Sahrawi” NGOs continue to denounce bilateral agreements between Madrid and Rabat, refusing that the issue be sidelined in favor of a more “pragmatic” diplomacy. Spanish and European institutions, the theater of these ideological tensions, thus see the radical left forces seeking to have the question of the so-called Western Sahara recognized as a “state matter.” They denounce Moroccan control over this dossier and strongly contest the diplomatic normalization policies carried out by Madrid. This line reflects a deep political fracture, where post-colonial idealism and outdated self-determination claims clash head-on with political realism marked by the search for regional strategic balances. Support for the so-called Sahrawi cause is not without controversy. Activists, commentators, and victims have recalled that the Polisario Front was, in the past, involved in violent operations in Spanish territorial waters, causing the death of Spanish fishermen. These painful episodes resonate in Spanish public opinion and fuel a virulent critique of radical positions that support a movement with a past combining political struggle and violent actions. This memory weighs heavily in contemporary debate and is exploited by political forces opposed to these radical left positions, notably the Spanish right. The question of the Sahara, a territory that was Spanish for a time, remains an important point in relations between Spain and Morocco. However, current political, economic, and security realities push for pragmatic Spanish diplomacy, favorable to strengthened cooperation with Rabat, thus marginalizing the radical stance on both governmental and international stages. The historical legacy is here perfectly exploited for contemporary necessities in managing Ibero-Moroccan relations. Today, after consulting numerous articles and writings recounting the positions of this left of another era, I understand a little better Si Lahcen Hadad's fight on the subject, and even more so his sharp responses to the remarks of a certain Ignacio Cembrero, whom I now see only as a bland neurotic. Thank you, Si Lahcen. One question remains: why is the Moroccan left not more inclined to take a stand and strongly denounce the alienated stance of their Spanish counterparts?

Morocco, History, and Geography: The Foundations of Political Reality and Territorial Integrity... 13952

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
Politics cannot be separated from history or geography. It consists of a set of actions and decisions aimed at organizing a society internally, as well as in its relations with the rest of the world. It is always situated within a context shaped by the two fundamental dimensions of history and geography, which are by no means mere backdrops but rather provide the framework within which political projects, conflicts, and developments unfold. Politics may be influenced by an ideology—born of a philosophy—or simply shaped by a given context, but such influence rarely lasts. History plays a fundamental role in understanding political phenomena. A country’s institutions, laws, and values are rooted in its collective memory, an inheritance made up of major events, breaks, or continuities with the past. Borders, for example, are often drawn following wars or treaties, the outcome of ancient or recent conflicts. They remain visible marks of past rivalries, defeats, victories, and compromises. Relations—whether of solidarity or rivalry—between nations, regions, or communities are explained in light of shared or divergent histories. The present Kingdom of Morocco cannot be understood without reference to its millennial origins, to the centuries-old Sharifian Empire, nor to the successive dynasties that shaped its relationship to religion, allegiance, and the centralization of power throughout different eras. Similarly, geography significantly influences the choices and constraints of public policies. The distribution of natural resources conditions economic development, territorial organization, and power relations. Relief, climate, and access to maritime routes determine possibilities for urbanization, agriculture, communication, and defense. Border situations impose specific diplomatic and security policies, while landlocked or insular areas require tailored strategies. Some authors even describe Morocco as an “island country” due to its geographical configuration. It is therefore inconceivable to conceive of effective or legitimate politics without taking history and geography into account. Every choice, reform, or political ambition must be based on a deep understanding of the territory and collective memory; ignoring one or the other exposes one to illusion, misunderstanding, or even failure. Regarding the Sahara, referred to as the “Western Sahara,” the geography of this region is undeniably contiguous to Morocco, physically, demographically, and historically: the Saharan populations have largely contributed to the country’s evolution. Its history was written through the successive allegiances of its tribes to the sultans of Morocco, and the Sharifian kingdom thus constitutes a nation-state established long before the contemporary era. Weakened by having missed the crucial turn of the industrial revolution, the Sharifian Empire was dissected from south to north, but also from the east. The so-called Western Sahara was annexed by Spain, which exercised colonial control there from 1884 to 1975. This situation facilitated France’s domination over territories grouped into French West Africa, part of which later became Mauritania. France also appropriated the eastern part of the Sharifian Empire, annexed de facto to its departments conquered from the Ottoman Empire and called French Algeria. The remainder was placed under French protectorate, while northern Morocco came under Spanish rule. Independence, achieved in 1956, and the gradual decolonization of Sidi Ifni and Tarfaya concerned other regions only later. On November 28, 1960, France authorized the proclamation of Mauritania’s independence—a region then claimed by Morocco, as were territories under Spanish control that Morocco considered its own. At that time, there was a Moroccan ministry called the “Ministry of Mauritanian and Saharan Affairs,” headed by Mohammed Fal Ould Oumeir, a representative of those territories. From 1963 onwards, the kingdom raised the issue of the Spanish Sahara before the Decolonization Commission. The situation became complicated when newly created Mauritania also claimed the territory, notably to pressure Morocco, which did not recognize Mauritanian independence until 1969—nine years after its proclamation. Morocco continued to claim the Spanish Sahara peacefully, preventing the Liberation Army from pursuing military actions in the region. In 1973, the creation of the Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro) marked a new stage. This movement initially aimed to unite the Saharan territory with the “motherland.” But in a context of regional rivalries and ideological tensions, the Saharan question was instrumentalized by various actors. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya played a decisive role in the rise of the separatist Polisario, supporting and arming the movement in a "revolutionary" and pan-Arabist logic, while seeking to destabilize the Moroccan monarchy. Later, Gaddafi himself admitted having made a “strategic mistake” in backing this group, which remains a destabilizing factor in the region today. In 1975, a peaceful turning point occurred: bolstered by the International Court of Justice’s opinion recognizing ties of allegiance between Saharan tribes and Moroccan sultans, the late King Hassan II launched the Green March to general surprise. This mobilization pushed Spain to withdraw from Laâyoune in favor of Morocco, which immediately reclaimed the territory. Mauritania, although having occupied adjacent zones, ultimately withdrew, leaving Morocco alone against the Polisario Front, actively supported by Algeria, which hosted, armed, financed, and elevated the movement into a “republic.” Houari Boumédiène’s Algeria exploited the situation to weaken its Moroccan neighbor, even calling the Saharan issue a “thorn in Morocco’s side,” a way of exacting revenge for the crushing defeat in 1963. This dispute has often overshadowed the deep history of ties between Morocco and these territories under Sharifian authority well before the colonial era. For Morocco, territorial integrity rests firmly on the constants of history and geography—major arguments. The rest is merely a temporary construction without foundation, destined to fade into oblivion in the near future. Moroccans know this very well… Perhaps not everyone else…

Morocco-Nigeria: From Coldness to a Continental Strategic Partnership... 13432

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
I am currently in Abeokuta, Nigeria, for the organization of the African Athletics Championships for U18 and U20. It is only natural to reflect on the relations between Morocco and Nigeria, which have seen a remarkable evolution, moving from a period of distance and caution to a major strategic partnership for Africa. An eloquent indicator: the national airline now operates two daily flights to Lagos. From the 1960s to the 1980s, relations between Morocco and Nigeria remained formal but distant, due to deep ideological differences. Nigeria, an Anglophone heavyweight and close to the Non-Aligned Movement—a non-alignment that in reality meant alignment with the Eastern European models of the time. Morocco, on the other hand, closer to the West, adopted a cautious diplomacy in line with its longstanding position and its principles of non-interference and respect for peoples and their choices. The distancing between the two countries became more pronounced, especially after the Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1984, in reaction to the admission of the so-called Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) to this organization. The issue of the so-called Western Sahara was a major point of friction, with Nigeria supporting the SADR, which hindered any significant rapprochement. Thus, relations during the 1980s and 1990s remained lukewarm, limited to basic diplomatic exchanges. The return of democracy to Nigeria in 1999, with the election of Olusegun Obasanjo, and Morocco’s growing influence on the African stage marked a turning point. The two countries began a discreet but concrete diplomatic rapprochement. Several areas were explored to strengthen cooperation: energy, with discussions on gas cooperation; trade, with modest but growing exchanges; agriculture, aiming to meet the growing needs of the Nigerian population; and the religious dimension, notably through Sufism and the moderate religious education promoted by Morocco. The real turning point came in December 2016, during the historic visit of King Mohammed VI to Abuja. This visit marked a break in bilateral relations, with the signing of numerous cooperation agreements in the agricultural, banking, industrial, religious, and energy sectors. One recalls here the fraternal embraces and warm words that marked the meetings between His Majesty King Mohammed VI and President Buhari. The flagship project in this dynamic is the Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline (NMGP), announced in 2016. This ambitious project, over 5,600 km long and crossing 13 West African countries, aims to transport Nigerian gas to Morocco, and potentially to Europe. Its objectives are multiple: to ensure energy security, promote regional integration, and strengthen geopolitical stability. Between 2022 and 2023, several financing and technical study agreements were signed with ECOWAS, OPEC, and European partners. At the same time, cooperation has diversified: Moroccan banks have invested in Nigeria, while the partnership between the OCP (Office Chérifien des Phosphates) and the Dangote Group has strengthened fertilizer production in Nigeria. On the religious front, Morocco welcomes Nigerian imams to its training centers, thus consolidating cultural and religious ties. Since the election of President Bola Tinubu in 2023, active cooperation with Morocco seems to be continuing. The NMGP pipeline project is progressing with the support of key players such as the European Union and the Islamic Development Bank, despite a complicated global context marked by the war in Ukraine and regional instability. The issue of Western Sahara remains a moderate dividing line: Nigeria has not withdrawn its recognition of the SADR, but has not made any hostile statements towards Rabat for several years, indicating a certain diplomatic appeasement. The Morocco-Nigeria partnership is part of a complex geostrategic dynamic, notably in competition and complementarity with Algeria. The Morocco-Nigeria project is sometimes seen as a counterweight to the Trans-Saharan Algeria-Nigeria pipeline, which remains at the project stage, unlike the Moroccan project, which is advancing rapidly and according to the set schedule. At the regional level, this alliance could reshape North-South axes of African cooperation, linking West Africa to the Maghreb, thus moving beyond the traditional Francophone/Anglophone divide. Morocco’s application to join ECOWAS, although currently suspended, illustrates this desire for deeper economic integration with Abuja as a key partner. Relations between Morocco and Nigeria have evolved from diplomatic coldness to a structuring strategic alliance for the African continent. The gas pipeline project, banking establishment, agricultural and religious cooperation, as well as geoeconomic convergences, make this partnership a major pillar of Africa’s Global South. The next decade will be decisive in measuring the ability of these two countries to transform their cooperation into a driver of continental integration. This clear overview and chronology of the evolution of Morocco-Nigeria bilateral relations highlights the political, economic, and geostrategic stakes underlying them. Can we conclude without paying heartfelt tribute and praying for the soul of President Muhammadu Buhari, who passed away on Sunday, July 13, in London at the age of 82 after a long illness? It was during his presidency that relations between the two countries developed and moved from a latent conflictual routine to a win-win cooperation. May he rest in peace.

Morocco, an Indispensable Pivot of the New American Strategy in Africa and the Atlantic... 13217

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
In a mini-summit, the first of its kind, President Trump hosted five West African heads of state, marking a new geopolitical dynamic in the region. The USA is now adopting a pragmatic and transactional approach focused on economic partnerships, security, and the development of strategic resources. Underlying this is, of course, the aim to counter the growing influence of China and Russia in the region. This new orientation is reflected in the targeted selection of African partners. Washington favors countries perceived as open to investment and rich in critical resources, possibly at the expense of some regional heavyweights like Nigeria. The emphasis is on trade and investment agreements replacing the traditional official development aid, which has been abandoned in favor of bilateral deals centered on commerce, access to strategic minerals such as manganese, uranium, oil, cobalt, and securing supply chains. One of the pillars of this new approach is strengthening security, which the region greatly needs. Discussions focused on combating terrorism, regulating migration flows, and military cooperation, with the intention to rely on trustworthy partners to project American power. Let us set aside the behavior of the participants and the awkwardness that chilled the atmosphere. Ultimately, everyone was simply in their place according to their true standing. One by one, before the president, each head of state introduced themselves in a kind of “name, first name, profession.” It is unfortunate that Mauritania, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Senegal separately expressed their economic, security, and political priorities. - Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, the strongman of Gabon, emphasized the need for increased support for local processing of mineral resources, mentioning his decision to ban the export of raw manganese by 2029 to promote value addition locally, following the Botswana model. He expressed openness to industrial partnerships to develop refining and local production capacities. - Umaro Sissoco Embaló of Guinea-Bissau highlighted the strategic importance of his country’s port and its rich bauxite deposits, requesting support to modernize port and logistics infrastructure, a key condition for attracting investment and regional economic integration. - Joseph Boakai of Liberia, speaking in perfect English according to Trump, called for a more favorable framework for American investments, especially regarding legal security and anti-corruption efforts. He also requested enhanced cooperation in combating drug trafficking and regulating migration flows, key factors for regional stability. - Mohamed Ould Ghazouani, president of Mauritania, seeks to develop manganese and uranium resources, calling for agreements to build local industrial sectors. He also proposed strengthened partnership in maritime security to fight piracy and illicit trafficking in the Atlantic. - Bassirou Diomaye Faye of Senegal raised the issue of his country’s hidden debt and sought support from international financial institutions like the IMF, as well as enhanced economic and trade cooperation, particularly in renewable energy and information technology sectors. All want to establish sustainable partnerships with the USA focused on local resource processing, infrastructure modernization, security, and economic governance. Were they warning that without American investments, other powers would take their place? Although Morocco was not invited to this mini-summit, it occupies a central place in the new African and Atlantic geopolitical architecture thanks to several levers, notably the modernization of the Morocco–United States free trade agreement. Rabat seeks to expand this agreement to include emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence, defense industry, clean energy, and green hydrogen, beyond traditional textile and agricultural exports. The United States, wishing to secure certain supplies to reduce dependence on China, finds Morocco a good partner in strategic minerals with its phosphate and cobalt reserves, essential resources for the global energy transition. Morocco is also a major security partner. It hosts the African Lion exercises and is modernizing its armed forces with advanced American equipment, including HIMARS, drones, and missiles. It is also negotiating the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets. In energy, Morocco aims to become a key supplier of green hydrogen for Europe and the United States, with projects integrating into future transatlantic energy supply chains. In the context of the new American policy, Morocco can hope to better benefit from the situation, primarily through reaffirmed American support for Morocco’s sovereignty over the Southern provinces, which strengthens its position. The Polisario is thus more isolated and Algeria disoriented. The Kingdom has also established itself as a regional hub thanks to its Atlantic anchorage, infrastructure, projects such as the port of Dakhla, the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline, and its political stability. It presents itself as the ideal gateway for American and European companies seeking access to the African market. This is a major asset for increased investment attractiveness. The geopolitical rivalry favors an influx of capital and structuring projects, especially in renewable energy, technology, and defense industries. Add to this Morocco’s African diplomatic leadership. Building on its diplomatic and economic successes, Morocco consolidates its role as mediator and leader in South-South cooperation and regional integration initiatives. It is the perfect pivot state for the region. The next step is for Mauritania to join the USA and the other four countries and clearly express its position on the Sahara issue. The current geopolitical reshuffle offers unprecedented room to strengthen strategic partnerships, develop resources, ensure security, and promote the prosperity of peoples. However, these opportunities require agile diplomacy and the ability to anticipate rapid changes in alliances and international priorities. Have the Five seized this chance? They all maintain good relations with the Kingdom.

Algeria Faces Strategic Imperative to Disarm Polisario Amid Geopolitical Shifts 13341

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
*The disarmament of the Polisario now appears as the *ultimate option* Algeria might face in light of recent geopolitical and diplomatic developments. Several factors converge toward this perspective, which is no longer merely hypothetical but a strategic and political necessity. For several years, the international community, notably driven by the United States, has clearly positioned Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the only credible basis for resolving the so-called Western Sahara conflict. This shift has fundamentally changed the dynamics, marginalizing the Polisario and weakening its traditional support, especially from Algeria. Algeria, which has long provided military and political backing to the Polisario, now finds itself in a delicate position, under international pressure and confronted with realities on the ground. The movement of Polisario militias out of Algerian territory perfectly reflects Algeria’s impotence, even debacle, as separatists openly use it as a logistical rear base. Separatist incursions into the buffer zone—part of Moroccan territory, a restricted area under tight Moroccan military surveillance—significantly weaken the Polisario, which emerges defeated each time. **In an already tense regional context, the recent terrorist attack in Mali illustrates the worsening security threats. Several Malian cities have been seized by a genuine terrorist army, an unprecedented coalition of all extremist factions in the region, including about 300 fighters armed and coming from the Polisario. This alliance complicates the security landscape in West and North Africa, blurring lines between armed groups and political movements, increasing pressure on neighboring states, particularly Algeria with its porous borders. For the first time, terrorists approached the Senegalese border, a significant development. Are we on the verge of the birth of another Islamic state?** In the United States, bipartisan calls to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization implicitly target Algeria, which could be labeled a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Facing these pressures, the Algerian military junta has few options. The most likely is a calibrated backtrack: accepting Morocco’s autonomy proposal as a negotiation basis. Reluctantly, it is forced to reduce its military support for the Polisario, which will also lose backing from Iran and its proxies. In this context, disarming the Polisario is not only a military option but a political and security imperative. Maintaining armed militias, fed illusions and weapons for decades, has become a burden for Algeria, which must now consider their dissolution, halt their funding, and isolate the most belligerent elements. This implicit approach aligns with the political settlement logic based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal. It would pave the way for the return of Sahrawis held in camps to their Moroccan homeland. The political end of the Polisario renders its armed existence obsolete. Disarmament thus appears as Algeria’s last card to exit the Western Sahara conflict deadlock without losing face or risking international sanctions. This choice, imposed by circumstances, could mark the end of an armed confrontation era and open the path to a painful but peaceful resolution for separatists and Algerian military leaders, who would suffer yet another defeat against Morocco. On the other hand, Algeria must finally allow a precise census of the Tindouf camp inhabitants and clearly determine their origins. It is known that Sahrawis from Moroccan Sahara are a minority, about one-third of the population. This census, repeatedly requested by the United Nations and the UNHCR, is essential to ensure transparency and the future of all. Morocco would likely not allow non-Moroccans to settle on its territory. Algeria’s persistent refusal to permit this census raises serious questions about its motives, given contradictions over the real number and origins of the camp populations, who are not only displaced from Western Sahara but also include Sahrawis from Algeria, Mauritania, and elsewhere. This opacity contributes to militarization and a situation contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention principles, as populations are effectively detained and armed, incompatible with refugee status. Moreover, a refugee cannot be armed. Disarming the Polisario is thus a major strategic and political necessity for Algeria, facing increased international, especially American, pressure demanding not only militia disarmament but also dismantling of the Tindouf camps. Maintaining armed militias in these camps is a real burden for Algiers and an obstacle to peaceful regional relations. Population census is therefore an essential step to clearly distinguish civilian refugees from armed fighters, a prerequisite for disarmament and militia dissolution. Without this clarification, the international community cannot control the situation, prevent fraud, or guarantee regional security. In sum, Algeria must stop evading its responsibilities by finally allowing an internationally supervised census, which would open the way to more transparent and humane conflict management while facilitating Polisario disarmament, indispensable for a lasting political solution based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal. This difficult but unavoidable choice is crucial to avoid diplomatic isolation, sanctions risk, and regional security deterioration. However, this option remains delicate and fraught with consequences for Algiers, which must first convince its population of the paradigm shift and find solutions for separatists whose hands are stained with blood. Disarming the Polisario, far from a mere military operation, will be a major turning point in regional dynamics and a decisive test for Algerian diplomacy. This will require great courage and perhaps new leadership.*

The Smara Attack: A Reflection of Power Struggles in Algeria... 7208

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The recent Polisario attack on Smara, in the Moroccan Sahara, takes place within a context of deep divisions within the Algerian military hierarchy, which directly influence the policy of the Algerian state. These internal tensions, marked by strategic rivalries, impact the Algiers-Polisario strategy vis-à-vis Morocco. This offensive, targeting notably a MINURSO base and the small airport of Smara, reflects the will of certain sectors of the Algerian army, supporting the Polisario, to challenge the international community and counter American diplomatic pressure, particularly the bill in Congress aiming to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization. This move also likely reflects a disagreement within the Algiers-Polisario alliance, exacerbated by the request of the Algerian Chief of Staff, Said Chengriha, to return the Iranian weapons supplied to the Polisario, signaling a probable change of course under international pressure. The Polisario, dependent on Algerian authorities for its actions, illustrates through this attack the fractures within the Algerian military hierarchy. Several currents oppose each other: some advocate rapprochement with France, others maintain the historic relationship with Russia, while others seek to appease the United States. These divergences are amplified by regional geopolitical stakes, notably the war in Ukraine, and by Morocco’s rapprochement with Sahel countries, which exasperates certain members of the general staff. Moreover, the concentration of military, political, economic, and diplomatic powers in the hands of General Chengriha fuels tensions with the civilian presidency. President Tebboune, although formally head of state, sees his authority challenged, as demonstrated by the private meeting with Emmanuel Macron held without prior consultation of the general staff, causing a cooling of relations at the top before the ‘president’ was reprimanded. These internal conflicts directly influence the management of the Sahara dossier. The Polisario attack appears as an expression of power struggles: some officers favor an aggressive posture to preserve their influence, while others prioritize caution in the face of risks of diplomatic isolation and sanctions. The increasing integration of the military into the civilian administration, reinforced by a recent presidential decree, illustrates the general staff’s desire to control all levers of power, accentuating the politicization of the army and internal tensions. Finally, the fact that the attack did not achieve its major objectives seems deliberate, constituting a kind of “signature” with Iranian rockets. This gesture can also be seen as a sign of despair from a diplomatically isolated movement and an indicator of divisions at the military top, with some seeking to show that a change of power could open other regional options. This operation, far from unanimous, weakens Algiers’ position and strengthens the arguments of figures like Joe Wilson and Jimmy Panetta. Highlighting that major national decisions occur within a context of internal rivalries within the military institution, a pillar of power in Algeria, no one can believe that the decision to launch rockets against Morocco was made in a unanimous conclave.