Mauritania’s Ambiguous Stance on the Western Sahara Conflict 11040
The Mauritanian Minister of Culture, Arts, Communication, and Relations with Parliament, Government Spokesperson El Houssein Ould Meddou, recently spoke on France 24 regarding Mauritania’s position on the so-called Western Sahara conflict. Clearly uncomfortable, to the point of appearing surprised by the journalist’s question, he seemed to stammer while affirming that Mauritania adopts a policy of neutrality, introducing a new concept: that of “positive and active neutrality” in this matter.
Very clumsily, he reduced the issue to a matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara,” without specifying who exactly he meant. He got further bogged down when he claimed that his country does not limit itself to a passive stance but is sincerely committed to contributing to a fair political solution, serving regional stability and the interests of all parties involved. Again, no clarification was given on who these parties are, and whether his own country is included or not. This borders on contradiction with his earlier statements.
According to the Minister, this neutrality is expressed notably by Mauritania’s willingness to play a central role in facilitating dialogue between the conflict’s actors, fostering a climate of trust and overcoming political deadlock. However, he seemed not to have carefully read the Security Council resolutions since 2007.
The Minister showed more irritation when the journalist asked about the closure of Lebriga, the border post between Mauritania and Algeria. He appeared unaware of this closure, which is surprising given that the decision sparked major controversy and strong reactions from separatists against his own country and government. After some hesitation, he awkwardly stated that the recent Mauritanian decision to close the Lebriga crossing on the Algerian border was a measure taken for internal security reasons, aimed at controlling crossings and protecting national sovereignty. His attempt to recover only entrenched him further. For him, this decision has no political significance and targets no particular party but responds to a state approach to securing borders. Quite astonishing.
The Mauritanian Minister thus explicitly reduced the so-called Western Sahara conflict to a simple matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara.” Did he realize at that moment the sensitive political repercussions he was causing? Indeed, this position was perceived as indirect support for the Algerian version of the conflict. Algeria quickly reacted by officially inviting the minister and bestowing many honors on him. This instant Algerian response can only be interpreted as a reward for the minister’s risky stance.
He thus placed himself in a situation where he contradicted himself. The “positive neutrality” he mentioned becomes clear: it is actually alignment with the Algerian position.
This situation embarrassed the Mauritanian government and presidency, which did not officially endorse the minister’s remarks. Several government members expressed discomfort with this statement, emphasizing that it does not reflect Mauritania’s official position.
Moreover, within Mauritanian civil society, critical voices emerged, denouncing the apparent ignorance of the minister on sensitive issues, notably the border with Algeria. During the interview, the journalist noted that the minister seemed poorly informed on this subject, which heightened the discomfort around his statements.
On the Moroccan side, the reaction to the Mauritanian government spokesperson’s remarks was very measured, even officially nonexistent. Morocco, as usual, chose not to publicly respond to this declaration, probably considering that the Mauritanian minister is only a marginal actor, not part of Mauritania’s true leadership circle. This silence can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid giving importance to these remarks, so as not to fuel unnecessary controversy or unduly embarrass Mauritania’s real leaders.
It should be noted that this interview took place before recent Polisario strikes near Smara, close to MINURSO positions, which officially complained. The mercenaries operated by passing through Mauritanian territory, where they were neutralized by the Royal Armed Forces.
The clumsy declaration of the so-called spokesperson created implicit diplomatic tension, revealing internal divisions in Mauritania and illustrating the regional complexities surrounding the so-called Western Sahara conflict, where every stance is scrutinized and can have significant diplomatic consequences, without hindering the inevitable and confirmed historical evolution: the progress and consolidation of the solution proposed by Morocco, reinforced by the recognition of the Moroccan sovereignty over the territories in question by nearly all key countries, among others.
By his posture, the minister thus disregarded recent developments, notably the bipartisan introduction in the U.S. Congress of the “Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act,” which a political leader in his position could not have ignored.
He simply sidelined his own country, which is directly impacted.
