Madrid has thrown its historical and political weight into the heart of the dispute over Western Sahara, hosting meetings on Feb. 10 between representatives of Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and the Polisario Front.
The talks, held away from the spotlight under direct U.S. sponsorship and in the presence of a United Nations representative, revived hopes of resolving the conflict. However, their success remains contingent on the positions of the parties involved, particularly Algeria.
As Morocco presented an “ideas paper” on autonomy for Western Sahara and the United States intensified its mediation efforts, questions emerged over whether the initiative goes beyond merely implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 2797. Observers have also asked whether the move is connected to the “Peace Council” established by President Donald Trump, and whether Washington is seeking to reshape the rules of international mediation on Western Sahara and push the process toward a more decisive and impactful dynamic.
Carrot and Stick Diplomacy
Moroccan political analyst Hamza Al-Anfasi told Alhurra’s website that the Madrid meeting was not merely a diplomatic encounter, but rather “a practical implementation of international Resolution 2797, which required the four parties to the conflict — Morocco, the Polisario, Algeria and Mauritania — to sit at the negotiating table.”
Al-Anfasi said Washington is now adopting a “carrot and stick” approach. While the “carrot” is reflected in support for the Moroccan proposal as a serious solution, the “stick” is directed at parties that may seek to obstruct the process.
As for the objectives and potential outcomes of the U.S. move, Sabina Henneberg, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, placed the Madrid talks within the framework of implementing Resolution 2797.
“I do not believe the U.S. move is attempting to bypass or circumvent the U.N. process, and that is reflected in the participation of the international organization in the talks,” she said.
Rabat’s 40-Page Proposal
Media reports said Morocco submitted a 40-page document during the meetings, outlining a technical proposal to establish autonomy in the Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty.
The Moroccan paper included several key provisions:
Sovereignty and symbols: The region would exercise self-rule under full Moroccan sovereignty, while retaining the kingdom’s sovereign symbols, including the flag, currency and national anthem.
Legislative and executive powers: The creation of an elected regional parliament and a local government with broad authority to manage internal affairs.
Judicial system and police: The establishment of regional courts and a local police force responsible for internal security.
Resource management: Granting the region authority to manage economic resources and local taxation to promote sustainable development.
Referendum and ratification: Holding a national referendum to confirm the agreement and enshrine it as a final constitutional arrangement.
Analyzing the proposal, Al-Anfasi said Morocco had offered a solution that guarantees the political, environmental and social rights of the inhabitants of the Sahara, describing it as a modern approach to self-determination applied in several European regions, such as Spain and Finland.
Algerian political analyst Dr. Mohamed Hedir told Alhurra that the path is aimed at strengthening “the institution of the throne,” explaining that “annexing the Sahara would give greater legitimacy to the king and thus the ability to assert sovereignty over all territories in the Sahara.” He added that the kingdom “offered normalization with Israel in return for this path.”
Prospects for Resolving the Conflict
The “carrot and stick” logic described by Al-Anfasi is reflected in movements within U.S. decision-making circles. “We have seen moves in Congress by Republican Rep. Joe Wilson and Republican Sen. Ted Cruz speaking about adding the Polisario to the terrorism list. This means that if there is no will to reach a solution, sanctions logic will be applied to the obstructing party,” he said.
“Trump does not favor the continuation of a conflict that fuels smuggling and extremism in the Sahel region. Resolving the dispute would benefit the global economy by building a world based on trade interests and mutual benefit, especially with a strategic partner like Morocco,” Al-Anfasi added.
Algeria’s role remains pivotal. Henneberg noted that Algeria has adopted a policy of “deliberate ambiguity” to avoid acknowledging itself as a direct party to the conflict. Al-Anfasi, however, said the Security Council resolution has embarrassed all parties by naming them explicitly, prompting President Abdelmadjid Tebboune to state that his country “has no problem if the Sahrawis find a solution with Morocco.”
Hedir said the Madrid meeting returns the issue to its historical starting points, arguing that Washington is seeking to create a new dynamic away from traditional stalemate.
Whether Washington can transform the “40-page proposal” from a diplomatic draft into a final geopolitical reality and resolve the Western Sahara conflict remains to be seen.
Further rounds of negotiations will be needed to determine the answer.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
