Despite the profound transformations that the Moroccan Sahara issue is experiencing on the ground and diplomatically, the latest of which is UN Security Council Resolution 2797, which called on the parties to the fabricated conflict to enter into negotiations for a settlement based on the Moroccan autonomy plan, the Polisario Front is still clinging to a discourse that is outdated by reality and regional and international changes.

In a statement issued after a meeting of the so-called “Council of Ministers” chaired by its leader Ibrahim Ghali, the separatist organization asserted that “the Front sees no solution to the Sahara conflict other than one that guarantees the Sahrawi people their inalienable, non-negotiable, and non-expiratory right to self-determination and independence.”

Those concerned assert that the Polisario Front’s insistence on adhering to the “separatism” slogan, which has lost its political and international support in favor of an autonomy solution under Moroccan sovereignty, puts the “Tindouf separatists” in direct confrontation with international legitimacy and the international will, bringing them closer to the circle of rogue organizations, and opening the door to classifying them as an armed entity outside international law and posing an obstacle to the process of consolidating this Moroccan plan, which has become the title of the next stage.

political bankruptcy

Al-Buraq Shadi Abdel Salam, an international expert in crisis management, conflict analysis and risk management, said that “the Polisario Front’s declaration of its rejection of solutions that do not guarantee ‘self-determination and independence’ confirms the state of intellectual and political stagnation of this militia by clinging to unrealistic options in an international context in which the UN Security Council calls on all parties involved in the conflict to move towards a realistic and practical political solution based on consensus, of which the autonomy proposal under Moroccan sovereignty is an actual translation.”

Al-Buraq added, in a statement to Hespress, that “this rigid position of the Polisario is a direct challenge to the spirit of the recent Security Council resolution, and this refusal is interpreted as a political bankruptcy of the Front, as it refuses to engage in the only settlement framework that enjoys international support, preferring to freeze the political process and obstruct the efforts of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General by clinging to options that are no longer on the table for discussion.”

The international expert in crisis management, conflict analysis, and risk management explained that “adherence to extreme options increases the risks of escalation and prolongs the stalemate, especially after the collapse of the ceasefire and the rise of the fragile security situation in the Sahel and Sahara region. Consequently, the presence of a separatist militia in the form of a non-state actor poses double threats; this irregular military entity maintains a constant source of tension and facilitates border instability, which in turn facilitates the passage of extremists and smugglers, increasing the likelihood of the region becoming a safe haven for terrorism.”

The spokesperson stressed that “a sustainable solution to the Western Sahara issue requires the dismantling and disarmament of the militia to prevent its continued use as a tool for political blackmail and as a destabilizing factor in a region where risks to human security are rapidly increasing,” highlighting that “the Polisario Front’s adherence to maximalist demands increases its political isolation in light of the international trend towards compromise solutions, and pushes it into a region where the likelihood of its military actions being criminalized internationally increases.”

Al-Buraq concluded that “the intransigence of this separatist organization constitutes a direct provocation to the United Nations and a political escalation that tangibly threatens to keep the region on the brink of tension, and in the event of widespread armed actions, it strengthens the position of the countries calling for its designation as a terrorist organization,” noting that “the designation as a terrorist organization is imposed automatically when armed movements choose to abandon the political path and begin to use indiscriminate violence or become involved in widespread human rights violations and targeting civilians, regardless of the declared political objectives.”

decisive shift

Jawad Al-Qasmi, a researcher in international law and international relations, explained that “Resolution 2797 issued by the UN Security Council constituted a qualitative and decisive shift compared to previous resolutions; as this UN body moved from describing the autonomy initiative as serious and credible to making it the basis and starting point for any negotiations. Consequently, from this change, one can understand the repercussions of any intransigence or rejection of the outcomes of this resolution by the Polisario Front.”

Al-Qasmi added that “in light of the recent decision, the Polisario’s rejection is no longer just a rejection of a specific settlement proposal, but has become a rejection of the only framework that the Security Council has set as the basis for negotiations. This constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of the Council as the highest body concerned with protecting international peace and security. In other words, with this rejection that it has announced, the Front has declared its withdrawal from the entire political process, which may be understood as an act aimed at perpetuating the conflict rather than working to resolve it.”

The same researcher stated to Hespress that “this rejection is a message that the alternative is violence and armed action, which is a clear violation of Resolution No. 2797 in its sixth paragraph, which emphasizes respect for the ceasefire, and this is a threat to regional and international security in a sensitive region suffering from the spread of terrorist groups and organized crime.”

He further explained: “Political rejection alone may not be sufficient to classify the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization, but this rejection coupled with certain actions, which may apply to the Polisario, such as targeting civilians or attacking infrastructure in the southern provinces, which the Front has done previously, and given that the United States of America is the host of these negotiations, the Front’s refusal to enter into this process may be a challenge to Washington, its foreign policy and its interests, which will fulfill a basic condition for America in classifying terrorist groups.”

Al-Qasimi pointed out that “there are many similar cases from which lessons can be learned; there is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has been classified as a terrorist organization by many countries, and the Colombian Revolutionary Movement, which was founded in the 1960s,” stressing at the same time that “the Front’s rejection of the UN settlement option does not only put it in opposition to Morocco, but also to the Security Council, which will make it easier for it to be classified as a terrorist organization in the future by some countries when the conditions for classification set by each country are completed.”