Western Sahara: deep differences over conflict settlement

Abstract

The conflict in Western Sahara has been going on for thirty-five years, and neither side has won. The parties to the conflict are in an all-or-nothing logic regarding the outcome of this conflict: Morocco preaches the autonomy of the Sahara as the part of the kingdom, and the Algerians and Saharans from the Frente Polisario waives the demands for autonomy. However, in the absence of a clear victory of one of the participants, the political solution need necessarily include a compromise reflecting the balance of power. In an effort to pacify and develop a region that could become a haven for Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Washington, Paris and Madrid could support the new Representative of the Secretary-General in finding a solution that could satisfy all parties, giving this result aspects of compromise. Nevertheless, they will have to take into account both the Saharans as a whole and the geostrategic balance of the region. This article discusses the problems of decolonization and interethnic conflicts. This conflict concentrates the opposition of several geopolitical blocs in one place. On the one hand, he opposes two regional powers: Morocco and Algeria. On the other hand, it opposes two blocs consisting of Morocco and Western countries, against Algeria, a traditional ally of Russia, and large African countries such as Nigeria. This article highlights the inadequacy of international organizations. The issue of stabilizing the situation in Western Sahara is even more important today in the context of Islamic terrorism in the Sahel. Terrorism is spreading in economically and politically unstable countries. The question of the independence of Western Sahara or its integration as an autonomous territory within Morocco must be resolved before terrorism intervenes in Sahari affairs.