Looking at the global order of today’s scenery, one can only admit the eruption of several games played on uneven boards. The US and China are locked in a long horizon competition over technology, supply chain, and global influence. Russia’s war in Ukraine and the cascading events taking place in the Middle East have re-shaped Europe’s security. Artificial intelligence is shuffling the cognitive and military power.
Climate Change is pushing middle- and lower-income states to negotiate over loss and damage. Multilateral institutions that were once providing the framework of shared rules now resemble crowded rooms where people are queuing for a different appointment. In such a turmoil-saturated environment, it is only natural to assume that small and middle-sized countries have been reduced to spectators. I want to suggest that this assumption is wrong, and Morocco provides the evidence.
Two decades of diplomatic triumph
Over the past two decades Morocco has won great international support for its claim to the Western Sahara region. We saw the turning point in late 2020 as Washington recognized Moroccan sovereignty. As we now know, this decision set off a series of supportive actions from other countries. In March 2022 Spain, which had been ambiguous on the Sahara file for nearly five decades, backed the Moroccan Autonomy Plan as the “most serious, realistic and credible” basis for resolution of the lingering territorial dispute.
That was followed in July 2024 by an even more consequential, historic statement of support from French President Macron. In a letter to King Mohammed VI, Macron said the fate of the territory lies within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. This was still followed, in 2025, by the UK lining up behind what is irreversibly shaping up to be the coming, ultimate international recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern provinces. Indeed, a statement by the UK government also described the Moroccan autonomy proposal as the “most credible, viable and pragmatic” route to a lasting solution. But perhaps the most consequential development in this trend came last October, when the UN Security Council Resolution 2797 put forth a solution framework aiming to uphold the spirit and recommendations of Morocco’s proposal as the ultimate path to a feasible and sustainable resolution. Taken together, these developments appear to have come in response to King Mohammed VI’s warning that support for Morocco’s territorial integrity would henceforth determine the “prism” through which Rabat reads the seriousness of its partners. Slowly but surely through what was a very long and tough path, Morocco is increasingly consolidating what is in many ways a diplomatic triumph.
This ripple effect is a result of a gradual and calculated diplomatic victory for a country of 37 million which has no nuclear weapons and is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council. So how did Rabat pull this off?
Beyond personality-driven explanations for Morocco’s diplomatic assertiveness
Some Washington think-tank analyses often attribute this policy shift to personal factors, namely the King Mohammed VI’s strategic vision, the Foreign Minister’s shrewd diplomacy, or that chance meeting at Mar-a-Lago. But having very closely followed this file’s development, I can say that such a simple analysis does not do justice to the complex strategy at play in Morocco. It was not about short-term tactics, nor was it a single dominant strategy which plays out in every situation. Instead, what we see is a large element of strategic patience and what game theorist Thomas Schelling terms a “credible commitment.”
Counter-intuitively, Schelling noted that leverage at a bargaining table often results from the voluntary restriction of alternatives by one of the parties to the negotiation. To make this point graphically, consider two drivers head-on in their cars on a narrow road each traveling in opposite directions. Each is determined to reach his destination.
But if neither driver moves, they crash, but if one does pull out the other wins. What classic game theory says is look for the steady state equilibrium which is a point of mutual understanding. However, this is not what Schelling suggests. The way to “win” the sort of confrontation which is outlined above is to tie your own hands and make it physically and politically impossible for yourself to “go back on your word” or in some sense to “reverse direction” and head off in a different direction.
For a driver, this would be to take off the steering wheel and throw it out the window. By removing your own options and forcing the other driver to pull over if they want to avoid a crash, you in fact win the standoff. That “paradox of commitment,” which in fact is the best way to look at Morocco’s diplomatic approach, is at the core of the country’s Sahara strategy.
The Autonomy Plan and Schelling’s theory of credible commitment
Morocco has followed a similar, long-standing foreign policy of refusing to be forced into a corner and to be drawn into the increasingly changing global order. The current trend of “incredible commitment” started with a first move in 2007, when Morocco presented the United Nations with a detailed and concrete plan for the Autonomy of the Western Sahara. By putting its plan forward in such a detailed and concrete form, Morocco threw its steering wheel out the window and signaled to the world that it was not willing or able to make any further territorial concessions.
The external actors, especially Spain and France as well as the UK and the rest of the international community, would have to live with the Moroccan framework and would have to adapt to it in order to bring an end to the long-standing conflict. As such, they realized that in order for there to be regional stability in that part of southern Morocco, they had to adapt to the Moroccan framework. In fact, this is what has happened and its culmination point arrived last October, when the UN Security Council recognized the Moroccan plan as the only game in town when it adopted Resolution 2797.
Walking away from this proposal would be politically unthinkable at home and diplomatically incoherent abroad, especially with the increasing support this plan has generated within the international community. And while more than 30 countries have chosen to bolster their support for the Autonomy Plan through diplomatic moves such as opening their consulates in the territory, others have opted for economic investments in the region. In doing so, they are supportive of what the Moroccan government has been doing for decades in creating jobs, building infrastructure and boosting the local economy.
Such forward-facing, prosperity-driven efforts include, among other strategic economic achievements in the region, the Atlantic port of Dakhla with an estimated budget around 1.04 billion euros, or the connectivity infrastructure between the north and the south with a cost of 932 million euros. By making retreat impossible, Morocco made its proposal the only stable place where everyone else could meet. And nineteen years later, they are meeting right there.
The second move, which most people underestimate, is maintaining consistency over years, even in politics, where this is rarely rewarded. The Moroccan diplomats have maintained a position for nearly two decades and continually reiterate the same three points: autonomy, sovereignty, and the impossibility of going back to how things were before 1975.
Reiterating the same position this many times is not stubbornness; it is how they are building their reputation. Once Washington moved in 2020, Berlin found alignment cheaper. Once Berlin moved, Madrid’s reversal looked less risky. Once Madrid moved, Paris became almost overdetermined. Once Paris moved, London followed. Each recognition lowered the cost of the next. That is how in international politics coordination falls into place. It is not a grand agreement. It is a slow, steady, shifting of interests. By locking in your own interest, you equally see to it that the others are also in.
Consistency as a strategic identity and a diplomatic asset
The third move is this: by not picking sides in the great power rivalry, Morocco has put itself in a very strong position. It is a major non-NATO ally of the U.S, a partner in the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Arab States, a partner of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, where many Chinese factories have taken root in Tangier, a key player in the supply of batteries for Europe’s electric cars and is already producing for export to European ports. Furthermore, Morocco is the primary European Union neighbor for energy, migration, food security etc. The country has ensured all this while maintaining strong ties with the Arab and Islamic world.
This is not “hedging” or lack of assertiveness, because no one is for sure able to predict what the international setting will be in 2040. Will the US still be at the forefront of global politics? Will China emerge as the leading hegemony? Will we see the emergence of new blocks? In this environment of uncertainty, what better way to play it safe than to put your eggs in many baskets. It is not a sign of weakness but in fact, what a middle power should be doing (also what many large players are in fact doing). What is unique about the Moroccan case is that the very transformations that destabilized the rest, have instead reinforced Rabat’s position.
Europe’s race for decarbonization has turned the Saharan sun and the Atlantic wind into a valuable energy source. The AI race made the need for a stable and multilinguistic partnership with functional universities precious. The Russian Ukrainian war, and the cascading events in the Middle East have led European capitals to realize that quiet southern neighbors who help in controlling borders, ports and managing energy flows, are more useful than principles of non-recognition.
What I do think is of value is the message that in a multi centered world the winners are not those that put all their eggs in one basket. It is the players that have a strategy which will stand up in many different scenarios. Morocco played a game it put forward for 19 years, with its diplomats emphatically signaling they would not trade it for any other issue. The board of players restructured itself around that commendable strategic patience.
As things currently stand, the Moroccan autonomy plan is the only viable solution framework on the table of the international community. Increasingly, that once reluctant international community has come to understand – and accept – that the Moroccan framework is the only real, politically feasible, and compromise-based solution to such a longstanding conflict. Great powers will always play out their own games on the international political board. But in the meantime, a middle power along the Atlantic coast has been playing a quieter game of strategic patience. And it is a game which has been very much worth watching, maybe also worth us learning from.
