Think Forward.

Histoire et géographie : piliers incontournables de la politique marocaine... 2605

Aziz Daouda, 8 mon.
La politique ne peut être dissociée de l’histoire ni de la géographie. Elle consiste en un ensemble d’actions et de décisions visant à organiser une société sur le plan interne, mais également dans ses relations avec le reste du monde. Elle s’inscrit toujours dans un contexte façonné par les deux dimensions fondamentales que sont l’histoire et la géographie, qui ne sont nullement de simples arrière-plans, mais offrent bien la trame sur laquelle s’articulent projets, conflits et évolutions politiques. Elle peut être influencée par une idéologie, née d’une philosophie, ou simplement forgée à partir d’un contexte donné mais cela ne dure guère. L’histoire joue un rôle fondamental dans la compréhension des phénomènes politiques. Institutions, lois et valeurs d’un pays s’ancrent dans sa mémoire collective, héritage constitué d’événements majeurs, de ruptures ou de continuités avec le passé. Ainsi, les frontières, par exemple, sont fréquemment tracées à la suite de guerres ou de traités, résultant de conflits anciens ou récents. Elles restent les marques visibles de rivalités, de défaites, de victoires et de compromis du passé. Les relations, qu’elles soient de solidarité ou de rivalité entre nations, régions ou communautés, s’expliquent à la lumière d’histoires partagées ou divergentes. Le Royaume du Maroc actuel ne saurait être compris sans référence à sa genèse millénaire, à l’Empire chérifien pluriséculaire ni aux dynasties successives qui ont façonné son rapport aux religions, à l’allégeance ou à la centralisation du pouvoir, selon les époques. De la même façon, la géographie influence considérablement les choix et contraintes des politiques publiques. La répartition des ressources naturelles conditionne le développement économique, l’organisation territoriale et les rapports de force. Le relief, le climat ou l’accès aux voies maritimes déterminent les possibilités d’urbanisation, d’agriculture, de communication ou de défense. Les situations frontalières imposent des politiques diplomatiques et sécuritaires spécifiques, tandis que les espaces enclavés ou insulaires requièrent des stratégies adaptées. Certains auteurs n’hésitent pas à qualifier le Maroc de “pays insulaire” du fait de sa configuration géographique. Il est donc inconcevable de penser une politique efficace ou légitime sans tenir compte de l’histoire et de la géographie. Chaque choix, chaque réforme, chaque ambition politique doit s’appuyer sur une compréhension approfondie du territoire et de la mémoire collective ; ignorer l’un ou l’autre, c’est s’exposer à l’illusion, à l’incompréhension, voire à l’échec. Au sujet du Sahara appelé « occidental », la géographie de cette région se situe indéniablement dans le prolongement du Maroc, tant sur le plan physique, démographique qu’historique : les populations sahariennes ont largement contribué à l’évolution du pays. Son histoire s’est écrite au fil des allégeances successives de ses tribus aux sultans du Maroc, et le royaume chérifien constitue, de fait, un État-nation institué bien avant la période contemporaine. Affaibli pour avoir raté le virage fondamental de la révolution industrielle, l’Empire chérifien sera dépecé du sud vers le nord, mais aussi à partir de l’est. Le Sahara dit occidental fut annexé par l’Espagne, qui y exerça un contrôle colonial de 1884 à 1975. Cette situation a favorisé la mainmise de la France sur les territoires regroupés dans l’Afrique occidentale française, dont une partie allait former la Mauritanie. La France s’appropria aussi l’est de l’Empire chérifien, annexé de facto à ses départements conquis sur l’Empire ottoman et appelés Algérie française. Le reste sera placé sous protectorat français, tandis que le nord du Maroc passait sous domination espagnole. L’indépendance obtenue en 1956 et la décolonisation progressive de Sidi Ifni et Tarfaya n’ont concerné d’autres régions que plus tard. Le 28 novembre 1960, la France autorise la proclamation de l’indépendance de la Mauritanie, région revendiquée alors par le Maroc, tout comme les territoires sous contrôle espagnol, considérés comme siens. À cette époque, il y eu un ministère marocain dénommé « des Affaires mauritaniennes et sahariennes » fut confié à Mohammed Fal Ould Oumeir, représentant de ces territoires. Dès 1963, le royaume porta la question du Sahara espagnol devant la commission de décolonisation. La situation se compliqua lorsque la Mauritanie nouvellement créée revendiqua également ce territoire, notamment pour exercer une pression sur le Maroc, qui ne reconnaîtra l’indépendance mauritanienne qu’en 1969, soit neuf ans après sa proclamation. Le Maroc continua de revendiquer pacifiquement le Sahara espagnol, empêchant l’Armée de libération de poursuivre ses actions militaires dans la région. En 1973, la création du Front Polisario (Front populaire de libération de la Saguia el Hamra et du Rio de Oro) marqua une nouvelle étape. Ce mouvement visait initialement à rattacher le territoire saharien à la “mère patrie”. Mais dans un contexte de rivalités régionales et de tensions idéologiques, la question saharienne fut instrumentalisée par divers acteurs. La Libye de Mouammar Kadhafi joua notamment un rôle décisif dans la montée en puissance du Polisario indépendantiste, soutenant et armant le mouvement dans une logique “révolutionnaire” et panarabiste, tout en cherchant à déstabiliser la monarchie marocaine. Plus tard, Kadhafi admettra lui-même avoir commis une “erreur” stratégique en soutenant ce groupe, qui demeure aujourd’hui encore un facteur de déstabilisation dans la région. En 1975, un tournant pacifique se produisit : fort de l’avis de la Cour internationale de justice reconnaissant des liens d’allégeance entre les tribus sahariennes et les sultans marocains, feu SM Hassan II lança la Marche verte à la surprise générale. Cette mobilisation poussa l’Espagne à se retirer de Laâyoune au profit du Maroc, qui reprit immédiatement possession du territoire. La Mauritanie, bien qu’ayant occupé des zones limitrophes, finit par se retirer, laissant le Maroc seul face au Front Polisario, soutenu activement par l’Algérie qui hébergea, arma, finança et érigea le mouvement en “république”. L’Algérie de Houari Boumédiène exploita la situation pour affaiblir son voisin marocain, n’hésitant pas à qualifier le dossier saharien de “caillou dans la chaussure du Maroc”, façon de se venger de la défaite cuisante de 1963. Ce contentieux a souvent masqué l’histoire profonde des liens entre le Maroc et ces territoires sous autorité chérifienne bien avant l’ère coloniale. Pour le Maroc, l’intégrité territoriale repose solidement sur les constantes que sont l’histoire et la géographie; des arguments majeurs. Le reste n’est qu’une construction éphémère sans fondement, vouée à s’effacer dans l’oubli dans un futur proche. Les Marocains le savent très bien...Peut être pas les autres...
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


9300

33.0

April 2026 or the Certain Confirmation of the Moroccan Victory... 25

Aziz Daouda, 30 min.
- World Politics - History -
3 min read.
We are entering a decisive month of April. The international dynamic is shifting even further in Morocco's favor on the Sahara issue. April once again promises to be a pivotal moment in the international handling of the Moroccan Sahara question. This structuring diplomatic ritual corresponds to the presentation of the annual report by the UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy to the Security Council. But this year, the context is profoundly different. The lines have shifted, balances have been redrawn, and a new dynamic is taking hold, clearly favorable to Morocco, a logical follow-up to the adoption of Resolution 2797, with strong structuring potential. The adoption of this resolution marks an essential milestone. It goes beyond simply renewing the existing framework. It consolidates a political direction initiated over several years, by enshrining the preeminence of a realistic, pragmatic, and sustainable political solution, centered exclusively on the Moroccan autonomy initiative. This resolution fits into a strategic continuity that progressively marginalizes unrealistic options, those that long relied on outdated or inapplicable references in the current geopolitical context. It also increases pressure on the parties to engage in a credible political process under the exclusive auspices of the United Nations, but in reality under strong American pressure. The United States has directly engaged in favor of the Kingdom, with the return of roundtables in Madrid and then Washington as key pivots. These meetings have confirmed a diplomatic reality that is now hard to contest. The format of the gatherings, including Morocco, Mauritania, the Polisario Front, and Algeria despite itself, is the only relevant framework for progress. It implicitly enshrines Algeria's central role, long eager to present itself as a mere observer. Its active participation, even forced, places it at the heart of the dispute, profoundly altering the reading of the conflict and redistributing political responsibilities. Madrid and Washington are not insignificant venues. They reflect the growing involvement of Western powers in seeking a resolution, with increasing convergence around the Moroccan proposal. One of the expected developments this month concerns the future of MINURSO. The time has come to redefine the mission. From its inception, it has never fulfilled the role for which it was established. A major evolution is likely emerging in support of implementing autonomy in the southern provinces within the framework of the Kingdom's sovereignty. Long confined to monitoring the ceasefire, the mission will see its name change and its mandate evolve to adapt to on-the-ground realities and the demands of a renewed political process. Such a change would be highly significant. It would mark the end of UN inertia and reflect the international community's will to move from managing the status quo to an active and definitive resolution logic. Much to the dismay of those who, for 50 years, have done everything to perpetuate the conflict through their proxy; the latter is increasingly suffering from the shifting landscape. Washington has toughened its tone and put the Polisario in its sights. Algeria is evidently feeling the effects. The introduction in the US Congress of a proposal to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization represents a potentially major turning point. If successful, such a designation would have considerable political, financial, and diplomatic consequences. It would further isolate the movement, weaken its supporters, and reshape the balance of power. Above all, it would reinforce the security reading of the dossier, in a Sahel-Saharan context marked by rising transnational threats. This adds to a Security Council increasingly aligned with the Moroccan position. The Council's current composition clearly leans in favor of Moroccan positions. Several influential members explicitly or implicitly support the autonomy initiative, seen as the most serious and credible basis for settlement. This shift is no accident. It results from active, coherent, and consistent Moroccan diplomacy, which has successfully embedded the Sahara issue within logics of regional stability, counter-terrorism, and economic development. Algeria, for its part, faces its contradictions. In this context, the Algerian regime appears increasingly beleaguered. Its positioning, long structured around ideological rhetoric and systematic opposition to Morocco, now seems out of step with international system evolutions. Algiers' relative diplomatic isolation, including in its Sahelian environment, contrasts with its regional ambitions. Internally, economic and social challenges exacerbate tensions in a country with considerable resources but unevenly distributed benefits. Algerian populations suffer from much injustice and lack the essentials. The Sahara issue, instrumentalized for decades as a lever for foreign policy and internal cohesion, thus reveals the limits of a politically exhausted model. The trend thus confirms a historic turning point depriving the Algerian regime of its artificial political rent. All elements converge toward one conclusion: April 2026 could mark a decisive step in the evolution of the Moroccan Sahara dossier. Without prejudging an immediate outcome, current dynamics are progressively narrowing the space for blocking positions. More than ever, resolving this conflict seems to hinge on recognizing geopolitical realities and adhering to a pragmatic political solution. In this perspective, Morocco appears in a position of strength, bolstered by growing legitimacy and increasingly assertive international support. The question remains whether other actors, particularly Algeria, will adapt to this new reality or choose to oppose it at the risk of greater isolation in a world where balances of power evolve rapidly. There will undoubtedly be a before and after April 2026, and above all, the consolidation of a Moroccan position oriented toward further development of the southern provinces. The Security Council's output is awaited in this direction.

Eternal Morocco, Unbreakable Morocco: The Identity That Triumphs Over Exile... 471

Aziz Daouda, 2 d.
- Politics - History - Society -
2.1 min read.
There are affiliations that geography dissolves over time, and others that it strengthens as distance sets in. The Moroccan experience undoubtedly falls into the second category. Across generations, sometimes up to the third or fourth, a phenomenon intrigues. Women and men born far from Morocco continue to recognize themselves in it, to feel attached to it, to project themselves into it. They have left the country or never lived there long-term; they were born far away, but Morocco has never left them. How to explain such persistence? Why does this loyalty cut across social classes, faiths, degrees of religiosity, and even nationalities acquired elsewhere? How is a memory so indelible? How does it withstand the test of time, distance, and new cultural acquisitions, if not through the profound weight of national consciousness? Morocco is not merely a modern state born from 20th-century recompositions. It is an ancient historical construct, shaped by centuries, even millennia, of political and civilizational continuity. Dynasties like the Almoravids, Almohads, Merinids, Saadians, or Alaouites forged a stable political and symbolic space whose permanence transcends apparent ruptures. This historical depth irrigates the collective imagination. It gives Moroccans, including those in the diaspora, the sense of belonging to a history that precedes and surpasses them. Being Moroccan is not just a nationality. It is an inscription in a continuity, a composite identity forged by inclusion. Moroccan identity has been built through sedimentation. It is Amazigh, African, Arab, Andalusian, Hebraic. These are layers that coexist in a singular balance, complementing and interweaving without exclusion. This ancient plurality explains Moroccans' ability to embrace diversity without identity rupture. Thus, a Jewish Moroccan in Europe or a naturalized Muslim elsewhere often shares a common affective reference to Morocco, not out of ignorance of differences, but because they fit into a shared historical and geographical framework. This inclusive identity enables a rarity: remaining deeply Moroccan without renouncing other affiliations, with the monarchy serving as a symbolic thread. In this complex architecture, the monarchy plays a structuring role. Under Mohammed VI, it embodies historical continuity and contemporary stability. For Moroccans abroad, the link to the Throne goes beyond politics. It touches the symbolic and the affective, a dimension fully grasped only by Moroccans. It acts as a fixed point in a shifting world, offering permanence amid changes in language, environment, or citizenship. This transmission occurs invisibly in the family, in rituals. It is not a memory but living, sensitive memories. The diffusion and transfer also manifest in cuisines with ancestral recipes, in music and sounds, in living rooms echoing with Darija, through summers "back home," gestures, intonations, moussems, or hiloulas. Moroccan identity is transmitted less through discourse than through sensory experiences: tastes, smells, rhythms, hospitality. Thus, generations born abroad feel a belonging not formally learned, an active loyalty blending affection and claimed will. The diaspora does not settle for abstract attachment. It acts. Financial transfers, investments, public commitments, and defense of Moroccan positions internationally bear witness. This operational patriotism extends affection into action, a duty to the nation, a Moroccan loyalty. Moroccans may be exiles, but never uprooted. For the Moroccan diaspora, attachment transcends oceans. Even in political, economic, or academic roles abroad, Moroccains carry their country of origin explicitly or implicitly. The otherness of host societies reinforces this identity. The external gaze consolidates this sense of belonging to a culture so distinctive that it crystallizes, is claimed, and magnified. This phenomenon, intense among Moroccans, compels us to name what went without saying in the homeland: a continuity at a distance. Neither frozen nostalgia nor mere inheritance, this relationship is a profound dynamic. Morocco is not just a place; it is the bond that spans generations, adapts without diluting, reminding us that exile does not undo all affiliations. Morocco is in our daily lives, in a perennial, solid, and unyielding memory that defies borders and time.

My Pain Qualifies Me 578

Julius Melien, 2 d.
- Health - Philosophy -
1.3 min read.
At an immersion meeting for psychoanalysts, I heard the phrase: “My pain qualifies me,” and immediately, like a lightning bolt, it struck deeply within me and, with the speed of a thought, made complete sense. I was able to perceive it with a clarity that, honestly, I don’t recall ever experiencing before in my entire life. It was so intense that I felt certain I was in the right place, investing in a career that, until not long ago, I couldn’t have imagined myself pursuing even in my dreams. Although this discovery is recent, given the fascination it caused me, perhaps it had been stored in my unconscious all along, likely as a repressed desire, even due to my own prejudice regarding matters of the human mind. Because of unsuccessful past experiences, I had come to doubt the effectiveness of psychotherapy, even considering it at times as a way of making easy money at the expense of others’ suffering. I believed that a person in distress could simply rely on friends and family to vent, share their problems, and relieve tension, while medications prescribed by doctors would do their part. However, upon hearing that my pain qualified me, now, of course, with a different mindset and studying psychoanalysi, I felt as though I was experiencing a kind of gnosis. I know my pain, or rather, my pains, and I fully understand this statement. When we set out to help someone who carries their own pain, we can even through a simple look, convey to the analysand that we understand what they are going through. This phenomenon is what we call countertransference: emotions, feelings, and thoughts that arise in our unconscious in relation to the analysand. These feelings and emotions are developed by the therapist during a therapy session. In that space, we become aware that there are two souls facing each other, one pouring out their thoughts, anxieties, and traumas, and the other offering attentive listening, care, and guidance, helping them find their path and providing tools to manage their struggles and move forward in life as best as possible. And for the therapist who has experienced, or still experiences pain, it also becomes an opportunity for self-analysis, which undoubtedly gives full meaning to the exchange that takes place between two souls standing face to face with their pains.

AFCON 2025: The Trophy that Sets the Savannah Ablaze.. 683

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
- Politics - Society - Sports -
2.4 min read.
There are moments when football stops being a game and becomes a brutal revealer of a continent's institutional and political fragilities. The current crisis surrounding the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) is the perfect illustration. Between the rigorous application of regulations, the credibility of the Confederation of African Football (CAF), media pressure, and reactions from the Senegalese Football Federation, the affair now extends far beyond sports into a much broader realm, intertwining law, sovereignty, and diplomacy. At its origin, a disciplinary decision that, under normal circumstances, would have been a simple sporting dispute. But the context, symbolism, and players involved have turned this file into a full-blown crisis. The CAF, as the regulatory body, faces a fundamental demand: to enforce its own rules without yielding to pressure. Any weakness in applying the law would open the door to widespread challenges to its authority, including revisiting past decisions and verdicts. In this sense, the decision taken, however contested, fits into a logic of institutional preservation. However, law, as essential as it is, cannot be entirely divorced from its political and emotional environment. Today's events provide perfect proof. The Senegalese side's reaction, perceived as an offense or challenge to the decision, reveals a deeper malaise: a sense of injustice, real or supposed, amplified by a public opinion whipped into a frenzy by a flood of increasingly belligerent statements and remarks. Social media, TV panels, and certain official discourses have turned a legal matter into a symbolic clash between nations. In response, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation remains silent, stoic, calm, and discreet. This is where the main danger lies. Beyond texts and procedures, it is historical relations, built over decades of solidarity and brotherhood, that are now exposed to unnecessary tension. African football, long presented as a vector of unity, risks here becoming a factor of division. And this drift, if not contained, could leave lasting scars. That's precisely what the occult forces, or not so occult, stoking the fire are aiming for. In this climate of escalation, the temptation is great for each side to harden its position. Yet, the history of sports conflicts shows that escalation is rarely a solution. It weakens institutions, undermines competition credibility, and, above all, distances the public from the essentials: fair and credible play. The central question then becomes: how far will this showdown go? A peaceful outcome necessarily requires a return to calm and reason. This does not mean renouncing one's rights or silencing disagreements, but framing them in a controlled manner. Appeal mechanisms exist, whether through direct sports jurisdictions or, if necessary, the international body that is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Its role is precisely to settle such disputes with impartiality and rigor. Awaiting the verdict from this body, even if it is slow, means accepting that law takes precedence over emotion. It also means recognizing that the credibility of African football's components depends on their ability to resolve disputes in line with the rules they have set for themselves. Any other path, pressure, excessive politicization, or media confrontation, would only entrench and worsen the crisis. At its core, this affair raises an essential question about the governance model for African football. A model subject to power plays and momentary emotions, or one based on solid, respected institutions capable of enforcing the law, even when it stings? Ultimately, African football bodies didn't fall from the sky. They are the emanation of a democratic process in which Africa's 54 countries participate in good conscience. The answer to this question will determine not only the outcome of this crisis but also the future of football on the continent. Beyond the present case, the credibility of an entire sports architecture is at stake. In the immediate term, one thing is clear: the time for appeasement must follow that of confrontation and escalation. Preserving the essentials and consolidating fraternity among African peoples is worth far more than a sports victory, even an Africa Cup of Nations trophy. Alas, this is beyond those whose vision doesn't extend past the end of their nose. The CAS will speak soon. Then we'll see who is right or wrong under strict application of the law, with no further recourse possible except a return to reason. Wouldn't it be better, in the meantime, to keep a cool head, maintain lucidity, and calm down? A trophy is only raised when it is deserved—truly deserved.