Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
There are those mythical dates that hold the breath of the myth itself and make an impact that lasts. There are some of these dates that sound like a hecatomb, but also like gestures that surprise with their timing and context. In politics and diplomacy, every behavior expresses recognition and a nod to the future, both bathed in optimism. What happened on October 31, 2025, at the United Nations Security Council has not yet revealed all its secrets.
Beyond the adoption of a resolution that strengthens Morocco’s position on the regional conflict over the Moroccan Sahara, this event outlines the contours of a new geopolitics that sheds light on the link between the national interest of states and political pragmatism.
Last week, a friend, a diplomat who is very familiar with the subtleties of the Moroccan Sahara issue, particularly in its tribal dimension, thought that it is on this basis that the autonomy plan within Moroccan sovereignty, as a backdrop, will be successful. He highlighted his argument by emphasizing the nobility and wisdom the kings of Morocco showed every time they addressed issues that bear an existential dimension for the country.
My friend’s thought inspired me with another equally edifying idea: faithfulness. When this faithfulness takes on a political and diplomatic dimension, it becomes even more noble. When faithfulness takes into account the realism variable, then, it puts political scientists and international relations experts in a bind. Faithfulness then becomes a behavior describing human nature, which seeks peace and order in the management of relations between societies and nations.
What is the relationship between ethics and foreign policy, which some consider to be incompatible? This relationship varies depending on the context and the scope of the issues raised in terms of adversity, animosity, and the propensity that the actors involved perform for the sake of achieving a definitive mutual neutralization.
No hard feelings, just clocks set back on time
From then on, the junction between nobility, recognition, and ethics becomes all the more important. I am thinking of the American position, which, since 2020, has allowed the issue of the Southern provinces of Morocco to be placed on a new orbit.
This position spreads a recognition mood. The American President, Donald Trump, made it clear that the United States’ recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the so-called Western Sahara is somehow a way to return the favor. Morocco was the first country in the world to recognize the United States’ independence in 1777.  A peace and friendship treaty was signed in 1786 and ratified in 1787, laying the foundations for the oldest diplomatic relations that have never been interrupted.
A subtle argument that also recalls that the first American diplomatic representation was in Tangier, Morocco. A building offered by Sultan Moulay Slimane in 1821 to the government of the United States constitutes the first American public property outside the United States. Later, this property was renamed the American Legation Institute of Tangier.
And it is in the same spirit of returning the favor that the United States symbolically opened a consulate in Dakhla in 2020. They will actually do it soon, once the approval of the American Congress is given for budgetary reasons. This will happen sooner than some observers think.
The American recognition had snowballed despite the soft resistance of some Western powers, including France and the United Kingdom. They ended up jumping on the bandwagon. Realism and geopolitics have dictated new rules of the game.
October 31, 2025, marks Morocco’s success on the diplomatic chessboard. Although Moroccan political planners and strategists do not consider it a feat in contemporary regional geopolitics, they nonetheless feel a deep satisfaction that reinforces their peace of mind. Restraint, composed behavior, and humility derive their legitimacy from certain palpable truths.
First, the sacrosanct evidence stressing that one should never insult the future. Nobility consolidates humility, which curbs the temptation to humiliate the opponent. Recognition, on the other hand, assures that commitments made will be respected. Ethics require that the concerned parties also accept that things can change overnight and that the bridge of dialogue must be kept in good condition so that two-way traffic is never interrupted.
Secondly, political realism is a floating leaf that recalls the feather in the American movie Forrest Gump (1994). A feather that allows Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump) to tell his epic story without feeling belittled by the irony of the people he shares confidence with while waiting for the bus.
Political realism can only help piece together the puzzles of an enigma if it identifies the main players and the route to follow. This expresses more than a roadmap, alternatives, and an exit strategy.
Thirdly, politics is a matter of climate and atmosphere. The climate is currently favorable to all parties concerned, even to the one that feels on the verge of losing it all. The way the UNSC’s resolution was written in its final version allows for a resolution that will occur within a single cycle of four seasons. Not beyond. The global geopolitical agenda would not allow it.
Fourthly, wisdom teaches that one avoids the binge of à la carte analyses and the reliance on the same media figures who say one thing and its opposite, so surprised were most of them.
Fifthly, communication on television sets missed the opportunity to be in tune with the solemnity of the moment. This could have inspired the producers to target the guests and limit the number of participants. There was a certain cacophony. Everyone wanted to make their presence felt with impressive remarks.
Casting the same people on several platforms on the same night and the following day, reminiscent of Forrest Gump’s run, drowned out the analyzes, some of which were very relevant, in a pond of contradictions resulting from the dichotomous inspiration of the hosts. Some gave the impression that they did not believe what had just happened in New York had actually and totally changed the rules of the game.
Sixthly, humility requires that one tread carefully so as not to fall into excessive euphoria. The true battle begins. This battle will be on several fronts. On one hand, the struggle on the intranational political chessboard. Political actors and civil society activists would be well-advised not to lump all pending issues together.
One must also not grant a grace period to those who have failed to fulfill their duties of observation, action, and proposition. One must go even further with greater fervor and determination so that the excesses that took place during the last process of reinventing diplomatic action do not recur.
Steps and actions that mark historyÂ
No doubt actors involved are entitled to defend their political opinions, but wisdom teaches that they must sit down and take stock of their past actions and future projects. No more business that feeds on the saying “preach the false to get the true” in both the positive and negative sense.
On the other hand, a raging battle will surge on the international chessboard. Diplomacy is not a calm river. It’s a profession. Moroccan political actors, far from the decision-making centers, should be humble when they do not grasp the scope of the strategic decisions adopted by Moroccan sovereigns regarding the country’s territorial integrity.
Strategic decisions are made by a team of decision-makers who are well-versed in their files. They advise decision-makers and suggest strategies for them to follow.
One might talk about the close relationship between democracy and foreign policy, but the latter is often a decoy. The decision-maker is alone when the decision to be made has an existential dimension for their country.
I refer to accurate examples from contemporary Moroccan history. One, Morocco’s refusal to strike a deal during the period 1954-1960 about Algeria’s independence. Morocco would have reclaimed the Eastern Sahara and let time take its course.
The offer was a poisoned gift and would have plunged the country into a premature civil war, as part of the political class of the time cultivated opposed ideological preferences and harbored political ambitions.
Two, Morocco’s recognition of Mauritania’s independence in 1969 was dictated, among other things, by the evolution of the issue of Morocco’s territorial integrity at a time when Mauritania was encouraged by Algeria to claim the so-called Spanish Sahara alone.
A claim supported from afar by Spain and France. Morocco was aware that the scheme concocted by Spain regarding the link between Sidi Ifni and the Sahara aimed to trap it so that it would lose out on both.
Three, the organization of the March in 1975, followed the same logic. It aimed to undermine Algeria, Spain, and Mauritania at a time when Spain aimed to organize a tailor-made referendum to stay in the territory through a proxy entity.
Fourth, the proposal to organize a self-determination referendum at the OAU summit in Nairobi in 1981 aimed to prevent the planned admission of an artificial entity into this organization. It also aimed to neutralize Morocco’s opponents, who claimed that it was opposed to the organization of this consultation.
Five, the proposal for an autonomy plan in 2007 aimed to end the delays of the personal envoys of the United Nations Secretary-General, even those who were aware of the impossibility of organizing a referendum in the Sahara. It also aimed to expose the double game, if not the bad faith, of some of its Western allies.
What happened on October 31, 2015, features three novelistic yet highly realistic elements given their tangible impact: Poetic justice, the suspension of time, and the nightmarish awakening. The three obvious facts depend on the perception that the actors involved have of each one.
Regarding poetic justice, some would be tempted to say that more than sixty-three years of obstruction by Algeria and its backers have not been able to overcome Morocco. Morocco’s rivals reap what they have sown.
Others would argue that superstition and curses do not exist in politics and that what matters is the reality on the ground. Let them take a look at the faces of Morocco’s opponents over the past three days.
We get the feeling that time is suspended and that these people don’t realize what’s happening. The blurred time does not allow them to reflect or react. Beyond denial, they give the impression of wanting to silence any voice that would remind them of reality, including their own.
Poetic justice or a haven for easing minds
They are living under the effect of the nightmarish awakening. The awakening that puts an end to the race and the recovery of symbols that have marked the perception of Algerian decision-makers since their country’s independence in 1962. The awakening questions the myth woven about the Algerian revolution since 1962.
Three American scholars are honored in this paper. They deserve it because they have a deep understanding of Maghreb affairs, including the issue of the Moroccan Sahara. Similarly, they allow me to refine my remarks on the themes of nobility, faithfulness, and ethics.
William N. Zartman wrote in 2003 in a preface to my book “Ambivalence salutaire, essai sur la logique du conflit et de la coopération au Maghreb”, Hami H., 2003-2018, p. 7’’: “(…) Why does the geographical and demographic island {the Maghreb region} not contain a haven space where political conflicts, even though  they are not absent, don’t favor the use of violence among members ?”
“We obviously do not expect the illusory dream of true Maghreb unity to come true or that the member states of the community will lose sight of their identities and national interests (…) {But} one cannot deny that the Maghreb region has experienced moments of cooperation (…), p. 8.”
Zartman’s observation is pertinent, yet one has to stress that Algeria used a proxy (the Polisario movement) to wage war against Morocco. Why? Because Algeria believes that it is a custodian of the only revolutionary heritage in the region, and in this capacity, it has the right to implement at any cost its model throughout the region.
Western political scientists have noted this for decades already. One of them is John Entelis, who wrote a reference book on Algeria where he perceives the strength and weakness of a country that envisions its societal projects based on ideology, in a very geopolitical space (John P. Entelis, Algeria, the Revolution Institutionalized, 1986).
John Damis takes a middle-ground approach to perceiving the Maghribi Affairs, particularly regarding the Sahara issue (Conflict in North Africa, the Western Sahara Dispute, 1983). He eventually developed more favorable ideas toward Morocco without compromising his intellectual honesty.
It goes without saying that foreign specialists in Maghreb affairs are aware of the importance of Morocco and Algeria in all geopolitical equations involving the Europe-Maghreb-Africa triangle.
This is why choosing between poetic justice and the invisible hand of destiny is a gamble. What matters is the meaning.
King Mohammed VI perceived this sense and behaved accordingly. The Sovereign believes in peace and the wisdom of men. And it is also in this sparkling sense of inspiration that we must perceive the speech he delivered an hour after the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2797 (2025) endorsing the autonomy proposal for the Southern provinces.
King Mohammed VI once again extends his hand and beautifully expresses what he means by nobility, faithfulness, and ethics. These three values reflect the confidence and resilience that the Kings of Morocco have shown since 1956 to liberate parts of the territory lost to colonial powers.
The kings of Morocco did it to build a peaceful and forward-looking regional sub-group and come to the aid of neighbors, even when they add to ingratitude, bad faith, and sterile geopolitical stubbornness.
Indeed, the proposal to open up to other Maghreb countries for the reinvention of the Arab Maghreb Union reflects an unequivocal political will; it aims to determine the causes of the various blockages that have existed since 1989.
Once again, the most important thing is the meaning. The open door left for Moroccan nationals originally from the southern provinces who are in the Tinduf camps to return to the motherland confirms such a belief. Once again, the homeland is forgiving and merciful, reminding us of generosity, forgiveness, and humility.
Three additional values that come with rigor, firmness, and vigilance. The inclusive dimension, which Morocco has made its guiding principle, does not mean that it accepts the reintegration of people who have no roots in the Southern provinces.
Furthermore, this inclusive dimension should not provide a pretext for individuals who have finally witnessed the erosion of a chimerical entity to sow discord or introduce tribal contradictions cultivated in Tinduf into the minds of the populations of these regions and other regions of the country.
In sum, some of these proposals are consistent with universal values that transcend the vagaries of equivocal time being and do not delve into conjecture. They even invite people to meditate on the worse unexpected outcomes that result from stubbornness, myopia, and false pride.
