Madrid hosted a new round of talks this week aimed at resolving the decades-long dispute over Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco but largely self-governing as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The meetings, held on February 8th and 9th and chaired by U.S. Senior Advisor for Arab and African Affairs Massad Boulos and UN Ambassador Mike Waltz, represent a significant, if tentative, step forward in a conflict that has resisted international resolution for nearly half a century.
The talks brought together representatives from Morocco, the Polisario Front – the Sahrawi independence movement – Algeria and Mauritania. This quadripartite format marks a departure from previous negotiation attempts, which typically involved only Morocco and the Polisario. Algeria’s inclusion is particularly noteworthy, as it has long been a key supporter of the Polisario Front and maintains that the Sahrawi people have a right to self-determination. Mauritania, which shares a border with Western Sahara, also has a vested interest in a stable resolution.
According to reports, the United States took a leading role in convening and facilitating the discussions, with the United Nations playing a supporting role. This shift in diplomatic leadership reflects a renewed U.S. Focus on the region and a desire to break the impasse that has characterized the conflict for years. The involvement of Washington, and the presence of Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara, signals a potential change in the dynamics of the negotiation process.
Morocco presented a revised proposal for granting Western Sahara autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. Details of the plan remain somewhat opaque, but officials in Rabat claim it offers a comprehensive framework for self-governance while maintaining Morocco’s territorial integrity. The proposal reportedly builds upon a previous, less detailed plan offered in 2007. Whether this revised plan represents a genuine concession or a strategic maneuver remains to be seen.
Initial reactions to the talks have been cautiously optimistic, but significant disagreements remain. A key sticking point continues to be the question of a referendum on self-determination, a demand consistently made by the Polisario Front and Algeria. Morocco has historically opposed a referendum that includes the option of full independence, arguing that autonomy within Morocco is the only viable solution. The differing interpretations of what was agreed upon during the Madrid meetings highlight this fundamental divide. While Moroccan officials suggest the autonomy plan was accepted as the basis for future discussions, Algerian and Polisario sources dispute this claim.
The conflict over Western Sahara dates back to 1975, when Spain withdrew from the territory, leading to a war between Morocco and the Polisario Front. Morocco subsequently occupied most of Western Sahara, claiming it as an integral part of its kingdom. The Polisario Front, backed by Algeria, established a government-in-exile and continued to wage an armed struggle for independence. A UN-brokered ceasefire came into effect in 1991, but a final political settlement has remained elusive.
The dispute has broader regional implications. It has strained relations between Morocco and Algeria, two key North African powers, and has contributed to instability in the Sahel region. The conflict also has implications for international law and the principle of self-determination. The African Union recognizes the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member state, while many Western countries, including the United States, do not formally recognize its sovereignty.
The International Crisis Group, in its analysis of the situation, emphasizes the importance of sustained diplomatic engagement and a willingness from all parties to compromise. The organization notes that a lasting solution will require addressing the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders, including the Sahrawi people, Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. The current U.S.-led initiative offers a potential opportunity to revitalize the peace process, but its success will depend on the ability of the parties to overcome their deeply entrenched positions.
The next steps remain uncertain. While there has been discussion of establishing a committee of legal and policy experts to further develop a framework agreement, no formal decision was reportedly made during the Madrid talks. The success of future negotiations will hinge on whether the United States can leverage its influence to bridge the gap between the parties and create a more conducive environment for compromise. The stakes are high, not only for the people of Western Sahara but for the stability and security of the wider North African region.
Dr. Comfort Ero, President of the International Crisis Group, recently highlighted the concerning rise in global conflicts, noting a landscape marked by major power competition. This context underscores the urgency of resolving protracted disputes like that of Western Sahara, which can serve as a breeding ground for instability and regional tensions. The Madrid talks, while preliminary, represent a crucial attempt to address one such conflict before it escalates further.
