He initially said no, even refusing to vote for the resolution. Then he practically said yes, claiming that it was ultimately a success for his diplomacy, having managed to block an initial draft completely in favor of his sworn enemy. Then he said no again, mobilizing his proxy to assert that he would not be involved in the subsequent vote, only to suggest another yes, and that, with one minor detail, he had even almost voted for the UN text, all the while waiting for the slightest comment from the administration of the pen holder, the United States, to justify his stance. In short, a political farce that even the best playwrights wouldn't dare imagine.
In short, this is the childish attitude displayed by the Algerian regime regarding the historic UN Security Council Resolution 2797, adopted on October 31, 2025, which definitively enshrines the autonomy plan as the solution to the Western Sahara conflict. What the neighboring country is not saying—and this is where the international community expects it to speak out—is whether or not it will take responsibility and participate in the upcoming negotiations, based on the principle of autonomy for the Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty.
In its resolution last Friday, the Security Council minced no words. The four parties to the conflict, specifically named (Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, and the Polisario Front), were summoned to sit down at the negotiating table, with the Moroccan plan as the agenda. The wording was surgically precise. The Security Council stipulated that the parties must participate in the discussions without preconditions and on the basis of the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in order to reach a definitive political solution.
In his first official reaction, the Secretary-General's Personal Envoy to the Sahara did nothing more than reiterate the message. The mandate entrusted to him by the Security Council is clear: to conduct negotiations on the basis of the Moroccan plan."We will, of course, take the 2007 Moroccan autonomy plan as the basis for these negotiations, as indicated in resolution 2797," he reiterated during a press briefing on Wednesday, November 5. The most revealing moment of this press briefing came when a Palestinian journalist, accredited to the UN and notoriously close to the Algerian regime, dared to speak of"two parties to the conflict." De Mistura corrected him with unwavering firmness."The parties are now clearly identified: Morocco, the Polisario Front, Algeria, and Mauritania," he clarified. An elegant way of reminding everyone that diplomacy is not a playground for those who want to cheat with reality.
Having thus committed itself, Algeria has, surprisingly, still not reacted to the formal notice. We were only treated to a brief outburst from its verbose representative to the UN, Amar Bendjama, on the day the text was adopted. He went on (a little too) long to explain his non-participation in the vote, criticizing a text that does not reflect UN doctrine on decolonization, a narrow framework for negotiation that clearly highlights the territorial ambitions of one party to the dispute, and even going so far as to call it a resolution that raises the most serious legal questions.
The incompetent Mr. Ahmed Attaf, the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, distinguished himself by the utter emptiness of his televised reaction to the text. This occurred on Tuesday, November 2nd, when, in a disguised interview broadcast on AL24 News, the latest propaganda outlet directly linked to the Algerian presidency, he responded with lies and denial, attempting to make people believe that the UN's reality doesn't exist. This performance borders on the ridiculous, but Algiers seems to be taking it very seriously.
Speaking erratically and looking defeated, Attaf engaged in an exercise that resembled a torture session. Between lies and denial, he deliberately omitted the essential point: autonomy was enshrined in Resolution 2797 as the basis for a definitive settlement of the dispute surrounding the Sahara. And this binds his country.
Instead of getting to the heart of the matter and stating his country's position, the diplomat resurrects the dead by claiming… that his country requested the removal of the provision mentioning Moroccan sovereignty from the resolution's preamble, and that in return, Algeria would vote in favor of the text. It wasn't removed. That's why Algeria didn't participate in the vote, he lied again. Such verbal gymnastics would make a tightrope walker look like an amateur, but in Attaf's case, it seems to be the only diplomatic strategy he's willing to rely on.
For resolutions far less serious for the Algeria-Polisario duo, the Algiers regime has frankly accustomed us to better. Last year, Algeria refused to participate in the vote on the resolution concerning the Sahara, even though the 2024 text didn't even mention Moroccan sovereignty. And until now, the country has been quick to unleash its verbal torrent to denounce UN resolutions on the Sahara and assert that it does not subscribe to them.
This stance has been repeated not once, not twice, but three times. In 2020, during the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2548 on October 31, 2020, Algeria took note of the text, while regretting its content, which it described as unbalanced, criticizing the fact that it did not recommend any concrete measures. The following year, on October 29, 2021, Resolution 2602 prompted an official statement from Algeria affirming that it would not support this resolution, which it considered biased and unbalanced. In 2022, Resolution 2654, adopted on October 27, prompted a new statement from the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, describing the text as the result of a laborious drafting exercise devoid, in its view, of any real will to resolve the issue.
Before 2025, each resolution became an opportunity for a minor festival of criticism. Each time, Algeria seized the opportunity to reiterate that it would not participate in the UN roundtable process to which it was invited. In October 2021, the country formally announced its rejection of the roundtable negotiation format proposed by the United Nations. The following year, in September 2022, Algeria again declined an invitation to participate in the quadripartite roundtables, considering itself not a stakeholder.
Now that Algeria has been explicitly summoned to participate in the next steps, what will it do? For the time being, aside from a few attempts at disruption and empty rhetoric, no decision has yet been announced. Once again, Algiers is playing a game of inaction with all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop.
Countdown
However, as a clearly designated party, Algeria must comply with the Security Council's requirements. Article 25 of the UN Charter is not only clear, it is binding. Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. In other words, the Council's decisions are binding and legally enforceable. If these decisions are binding on Member States, they are all the more so for members of the Council. And a failure to participate in the vote on a decision cannot exempt a member of the Council from the responsibility of honoring this obligation, writes Mohammed Loulichki, former Ambassador of Morocco to the UN and now Senior Fellow at the Policy Center for the New South (PCNS), a specialist in diplomacy and conflict resolution, in a dedicated policy paper.
It is worth recalling that Algeria refused to participate in the two votes on the Sahara during its two years as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, in 2024 and 2025. On December 31st, it will cede its seat on the Council to another country. It will also be absent from the strategic meeting in April 2026, where the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Staffan de Mistura, will brief Council members on the progress of talks between Morocco, Algeria, the Polisario Front, and Mauritania, based on autonomy as a solution to the Sahara dispute. In short, the countdown has begun while Algeria continues to play the absentee in a arena where it plays a leading role, shirking its responsibilities like a child refusing to finish their plate. How long will this continue?
Until now, the Western Sahara issue has been governed by the norms set forth in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. This chapter concerns the means by which member states must resolve their disputes peacefully. It emphasizes that states must first seek to settle their disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or other peaceful means before resorting to force. This chapter also empowers the Security Council to facilitate such resolutions and recommend solutions, but without directly imposing sanctions or coercive actions. The primary objective is to prevent conflicts and maintain international peace through dialogue and cooperation.
In this spirit, and since the creation of MINURSO in 1991, Security Council resolutions have been limited to renewing MINURSO’s mandate annually, encouraging the parties to pursue negotiations in good faith, calling for a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution, and supporting the efforts of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General. These terms are typical of resolutions adopted under Chapter VI: polite, diplomatic, almost cautious.
But gradually, the doctrine is shifting towards the provisions of Article VII of the same Charter. And this is where things become complicated for Algeria. By urging the parties to negotiate, the Security Council is no longer simply suggesting; it is making it binding. And it is at this point that coercive measures, even sanctions, can come into play. Chapter VII, entitled Action in Case of Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression, empowers the Security Council to intervene when international peace is threatened. Unlike Chapter VI, it authorizes coercive measures, ranging from economic and political sanctions to the use of military force, to maintain peace and security. This chapter establishes that the Council can decide on the necessary actions, including military operations, to protect or restore stability. The objective is to enable an effective response to serious conflicts that endanger the international community.
With the Polisario Front, which many know is being manipulated by Algeria, threatening to respond with force, the risk becomes tangible. The armed militia finds itself even more vulnerable to a proposed American law that would classify it as a terrorist organization. From there, it's a short step to Algeria itself being labeled a state sponsor of terrorism, emphasizes Abdelfattah Naoum, a political scientist, expert in international relations, and specialist on the Western Sahara issue. A step that Algiers clearly fears.
Algeria's official silence in response to the Security Council's demand reflects a deep-seated fear of this scenario. But one thing is certain: Algiers can no longer afford the luxury of ignoring the UN process. Sooner rather than later, it will have to resign itself to respecting the Security Council's demand, whether it likes it or not.
By Tarik Qattab
