Tensions rise between Morocco and the POLISARIO Front in Western Sahara

The last few days have seen an increase in tensions between Moroccan forces and the Polisario Front in the disputed Western Sahara region. Clashes started in El Guerguerat, an area close to the border with Mauritania regularly patrolled by UN Peacekeepers from the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) who maintain a 29-year-old ceasefire. Morocco has denied any victims contrary to the information from the Polisario in this regard.

The conflict seems to be triggered over a blocked road connecting Morocco with Mauritania albeit passing through the UN buffer zone. The General Staff of the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces said in a statement that a security cordon was placed overnight “in order to secure the flow of goods and people through this axis,”. However, the Polisario’s envoy to Algeria, Abdelkader Omar, said Moroccan forces “opened fire on innocent civilian protesters” and thus the Polisario fighters came to the protesters’ defence, which prompted “intense clashes” on Friday. The statement by the General Staff of the Moroccan military said arms would only be used in self-defence. On the other hand, the Polisario said it would retaliate against any attack on its people. 

It is not clear what exactly happened in El Guerguerat with some unconfirmed accounts suggesting that a road blockade had been ongoing for several weeks. Al Jazeera reported on 200 truck drivers who appealed to Moroccan and Mauritanian authorities for help, saying they were stranded on the Mauritanian side of the border near El Guerguerat unable to cross into Morocco. 

In the aftermath of the El Guerguerat events on Friday (November 13), the Moroccan army confirmed that the Guerguerat crossing has become entirely safe. The Moroccan and Saharawi forces are in a state of maximum alert, and a cautious calm hanged over the region's atmosphere in the last days. However, it is impossible to know the situation on the ground given the vast desert areas and the media campaigns by both sides that portray different stories. The Secretary-General of the Polisario Front and leader of the Saharawi Republic, Brahim Ghali, declared an end to the ceasefire, and there are reports that volunteers signed up to join the Polisario forces. The legal basis for mobilisation, according to several Saharawi officials and activists, is that the operation on Friday occurred in a demilitarised zone.  

International Response

The international community called for restraint and to respect legal structures around the Western Sahara issue. Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, said that António Guterres “expresses grave concern regarding the possible consequences of the latest developments.”

MINURSO is committed to continue implementing its mandate and the Secretary-General [of the UN] calls on the parties to provide full freedom of movement for the Mission in accordance with its mandate. 

The European Union joined the UN and called for avoiding escalation and to respect the ceasefire enacted since 1991. 

The EU joins the UN in its call against the escalation and in respecting the ceasefire in force since September 6, 1991 and the continuation of the political negotiations suspended in 2019,

The High Representative of the European Union, Josep Borrell, spoke on Sunday with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Morocco Nasser Bourita and Algeria Sabri Boukadoum, to learn about the latest developments highlighting the necessity for the freedom of movement and the strategic importance of the region. Borrell affirmed the full support of the EU for the efforts of the UN and its Secretary-General. Borrell also proposed appointing a new Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN for Western Sahara, a position that has been vacant since last year and is essential to the resumption of dialogue. 

In a similar statement, the Spanish Foreign Ministry called for resuming negotiations and to proceed towards a politically just and acceptable situation for both parties. Several Spanish MPs however, highlighted that Morocco has the right to intervene to protect its lands, suggesting that commercial transport is important for the region and Spain. Some countries were more outspoken in their support of the Moroccan military activity. These countries, which include GCC bloc, condemned the Polisario and accused it of breaching the ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Egyptian and Russian MFA offered neutral diplomatic remarks.  

Historical Background 

The recent clashes are the latest in the simmering conflict over the status of Western Sahara, which has been disputed since the departure of the colonial power, Spain, in 1975. The Polisario Front was initially created in 1973 to fight against Spanish colonialism. In 1975, after the Spanish left, Morocco annexed the territory, triggering a war with the Polisario. A ceasefire in 1991 established the MINURSO yet Morocco considers the Sahara to be its rightful sovereign territory. A referendum on Western Sahara’s future never took place, and several analysts and activists suggest that a delay of a referendum has agitated the Polisario’s sentiments and hence, the UN “failed in its obligations”. 

Looking back into the historical context, both sides bolster their cases with historical and legal arguments. Morocco says the Sahara has been loyal to Morocco since the 11th century when the Saharan rulers pledged allegiance to the rulers of Morocco. This allegiance, as per the Moroccan narrative continued until Spain colonised the Sahara in 1884. The narrative was integrated or rather portrayed later in the context of competing French and Spanish colonial powers. When Spain left Morocco in 1956, the latter gradually sought to regain control of the Sahara. In 1975, upon the departure of the Spanish from Western Sahara, the Hague-based International Court of Justice gave an Advisory Opinion that the Sahara has legal and historical ties with Morocco. However, Morocco cannot claim any sovereignty over the Sahara. Morocco has since tried to take control of Western Sahara which culminated in its unilateral annexation and a war over Western Sahara. 

On the other hand, the Polisario Front claims to be the legal representative of the Saharawi people even before the annexation. To legitimise its cause, the Polisario established the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic which was admitted to the Organisation of African Unity. In the aftermath of the war, Morocco controlled 80 per cent of Western Sahara while Mauritania gave up on its claims. The MINURSO established a buffer zone and the Moroccan military erected its defensive earthwork structures (berms). Tens of thousands of refugees settled in camps hosted primarily by Algeria. 

The recent clashes and the revocation of the ceasefire served to highlight once more the recurring contradictory narratives, and the impatience with the task allocated to the MINURSO. The Moroccan narrative suggests that the Polisario blocked and detained truck drivers while the Polisario says it was only reacting to human right violations of Morocco. When clashes started, each argued that the other side opened fire and destroyed properties. 
 

Image
A Map explaining the zones controlled by both sides along with the buffer line (DW)
A map explaining the zones controlled by both sides along with the buffer line (DW) 

The Polisario Front feels neglected and betrayed by the failure to hold the long-awaited referendum. Cutting a key trade route is for them an effective way of pressuring Morocco. The Polisario is not fond of Moroccan socioeconomic activity in what it claims to be Moroccan occupied Western Sahara. Morocco seems to believe that the Polisario Front has lost the momentum. It has claimed that the Polisario is politically dead and ignored by the international community. With the political harassment in Western Sahara and the stalemate of the UN, Morocco and Polisario could find themselves at a full-scale war again. 

The Polisario continues to rely heavily on Algerian support. In 1975, Algeria was actively helping the Saharawis which put it in a clash with Morocco. Since then, Algeria has been a strong advocate for the Front’s cause. As in the early years of the conflict, Algeria could choose to back the Polisario militarily if a larger conflict escalates. Both Algeria and Morocco are heavily armed yet face several domestic and economic challenges. 
Several Saharawi activists and some tribal groupings agree on the political decay of the Front. Not all Saharawi tribes support the Polisario, a fact that Morocco has exploited. Over the years, some tribal groups have criticised the action of the Polisario and rallied behind the Moroccan government. A movement known as Saharawis for Peace, have advocated for a renewed Saharawi political rhetoric portraying voices not associated with the political elite of the Polisario. 
 

Peace Efforts 

The Moroccan King Mohammed VI addressed the issue of Western Sahara recently where he spoke of a new path of diplomatic commitment and economic achievements whilst asserting the “Moroccanness” of the Sahara. Nonetheless, King Mohammed VI hoped for a peaceful political resolution. He reaffirmed Morocco’s commitment to the Autonomy plan that Morocco and the US Congress support. This is the second major plan after an earlier version known as the Baker Plan was rejected by all concerned parties. The current plan would grant autonomy to the people of Western Sahara. The plan envisages that the Saharawis would run their government under Moroccan sovereignty, with Rabat retaining control of the defence and foreign affairs. The Polisario rejected the plan calling for full independence from Morocco.  

The UN, through its mission – MINURSO, is still expected to maintain the ceasefire, and take quick steps to determine the political future of the Sahara. Yet the effectiveness of MINURSO, without a renewed commitment from Morocco and the Polisario Front, is doubtful.

 

 

Noman Ahmed is Research Associate at LINKS Europe focusing on conflicts in Europe's Neighbourhood South.  
Photo: Saharawi Refugee Camp (European Commission via Flicker)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
 Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)