Trump, Morocco, and the End of the Polisario Myth 6415
In just a few short weeks, the Western Sahara issue has seen a series of rare and intense developments, marking a genuine acceleration in a case long frozen by diplomatic deadlock, strategic inertia, and hidden agendas. The Trump administration, leading an international current weary of this outdated conflict, has clearly demonstrated its desire to enter a new era, breaking away from decades of inaction fueled by the Cold War and its lingering ideological effects.
For Washington, there is no longer any tolerance for the destabilization games of Algeria’s military regime, which has lost its bearings and uses this conflict to mask its own internal political, economic, and social failures. By doing so, it hinders regional development ambitions and healthy, complementary relations with a Moroccan neighbor it both envies for its successes and resents for its strong alliances with the West.
Donald Trump's election reshuffled the deck. Gone are the cautious postures and fragile balancing acts between the parties. The time has come for action, transparent alliances, and the pursuit of concrete solutions. In this context, the Trump administration’s support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal is unequivocal. The Moroccan initiative is now described by the White House as the only "just and lasting" basis for resolving the conflict.
During a highly symbolic meeting between Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita and Senator Marco Rubio, the latter reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to a solution based solely on Morocco’s offer. The signals are clear: for Washington, playtime is over. Morocco is strong and reliable. It is within its rights. It is the best friend and partner in the region. It was also the first country to recognize the United States and to protect its fleet during the country’s early, difficult years.
This reaffirmed American realignment comes with bold proposals. Several influential members of Congress are now considering officially designating the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization. They have a solid basis for their case, including: attacks on civilians in Smara and near El Mahbes, the unilateral breach of the 1991 ceasefire, and alleged ties with hostile powers like Iran and Russia—not to mention the confirmed presence of Polisario fighters in Syria, who are still being held there.
On April 11, it should be noted, Republican Representative Joe Wilson announced his intention to introduce a bill to this effect. According to him, the Polisario Front serves as a gateway for what he calls the “Axis of Aggression” in Africa, linking the separatist group to Iranian and Russian geopolitical ambitions on the continent, posing a threat to U.S. security. He now holds in his hands a well-documented Hudson Institute report that points to close ties between the Polisario and Hezbollah, and even the PKK. The Polisario is said to be involved in arms trafficking with terrorist groups in the Sahel, the embezzlement of humanitarian aid, and more.
It would be a mistake to think this logic is limited to Americans. Just last week, for example, former UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox also described the Polisario as a terrorist organization. The idea is gaining serious ground.
This dynamic puts Algeria face to face with its responsibilities: the Polisario is hosted, supported, and funded on its soil. Labeling the Polisario a terrorist group would effectively remove it from the equation. Its diplomatic marginalization would further isolate Algiers, now clearly seen as a direct party to the conflict, and no longer the neutral third actor it claims to be. The mask has definitively fallen.
Another country facing turbulence: South Africa. A traditional supporter of the Polisario, Pretoria is beginning to feel the impact of this strategic shift. The local press is raising questions, and voices within the ANC are calling for a reassessment of the country’s foreign policy. Several NGOs are known to be raising funds for the Polisario, but think tanks such as the Hudson Institute argue that a terrorist designation would force them to stop these operations under threat of international sanctions.
The consequences could be severe for South African institutions. Already under the scrutiny of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the country cannot afford to be suspected of complicity with a designated terrorist entity. Banks in particular fear tighter controls and may pressure the government to change course.
Tensions between Washington and Pretoria, already strained since Trump took office, risk further deterioration. The U.S. administration makes no secret of its distrust of the South African government. A possible designation of the Polisario as a terrorist group could become a breaking point in an already fragile relationship, potentially leading to sanctions, economic pressure, and heightened diplomatic scrutiny.
The Western Sahara dossier is entering a new phase. The status quo no longer holds against the backdrop of international realignments, and stalling tactics are losing effectiveness. The world no longer tolerates frozen conflicts, and global powers are looking for a stable, trustworthy Africa that is open to cooperation. In this evolving dynamic, Morocco appears to have won the battle of clarity. The question now is whether its adversaries will be able to read the new balance of power.
This is likely what explains and fuels the optimism of Morocco’s UN representative, Omar Hilale. In barely veiled terms, he hinted that the issue might be declared resolved to coincide with the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Green March, on November 6…
