Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
Algerian diplomacy in action.
On October 30, the United Nations Security Council will be faced with a decision that goes far beyond the simple extension of MINURSO’s mandate. This is a major test for multilateralism, namely extending the mission while respecting international law and the principle of self-determination of the Sahrawi people, or giving in to political pressure and indirectly legitimizing “Moroccan autonomy”.
The American draft resolution, supported by France, attempts to introduce ambiguous formulations favorable to the Moroccan position, which deeply divides the members of the Council. According to diplomatic analyzes made public recently, Washington would only have five to six sure votes, far from the minimum required of nine to adopt the text. The five permanent members are divided, France and the United States would vote in favor, while China, Russia and the United Kingdom would abstain. Moscow could even resort to its veto if the text opposes international law or seems to endorse Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.
Among the non-permanent members, the positions are just as contrasted. Algeria, strongly supporting the Sahrawi cause, will vote against, while Denmark, Pakistan, South Korea and Slovenia are expected to abstain. Some countries, such as Sierra Leone or Panama, support the American proposal, while others, such as Guyana, Greece or Somalia, remain undecided. This mosaic of positions reflects a deep divide within the Council, between those who defend the law and those who are subject to or exert political and economic pressure.
The question goes far beyond a simple technical vote. This is a symbolic and legal issue. The Security Council will decide whether it protects the right of peoples to self-determination or whether it validates the policy of fait accompli. For several years, certain states have been trying to transform the Sahrawi conflict into a “regional dispute”, likely to be resolved through political compromises. However, Western Sahara remains a non-autonomous territory recognized by the UN, and any text circumventing the principle of self-determination would constitute a flagrant violation of international law and UN resolutions.
On the ground, the Sahrawi people do not remain passive. In the refugee camps, massive demonstrations reaffirm the rejection of any imposed solution as well as the desire to defend freedom and independence. Citizens express their refusal of any maneuver aimed at circumventing international legitimacy, denouncing what they consider to be an attempt to reward the occupier and punish the colonized people. These mobilizations show that the Sahrawi question is as much human as it is political and that it cannot be reduced to a game of negotiations between great powers.
The October 30 session also exposes a broader crisis, that of multilateralism and the credibility of the UN. Accepting a biased text would amount to legitimizing practices contrary to international law and lastingly weakening the role of the organization in conflict resolution. Conversely, refusing or amending the text would strengthen the legitimacy of international institutions and reaffirm that law takes precedence over force.
In this case, three scenarios seem to emerge. The first consists of the adoption of an amended text, neutral and acceptable to a maximum of members, avoiding the explicit mention of “Moroccan autonomy”. The second is the failure of the vote or the use of a veto, which would strengthen the Sahrawi position but could create major diplomatic tensions. Finally, a limited technical extension of the MINURSO mandate could save time and avoid a direct confrontation between great powers, while leaving the question unresolved.
This election is therefore not a simple administrative calendar but represents a historic choice, a line of demarcation between justice and the logic of the strongest. The international community is watching closely, aware that the outcome of this vote will determine not only the future of Western Sahara but also the ability of the UN to defend the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination in the face of geopolitical interests.
Ultimately, on October 30, the Security Council will have to answer a decisive question: preserve law and legitimacy or bow to the powers? The response will have lasting repercussions for Western Sahara, for multilateralism and for the very credibility of the organization. The whole world, and the Sahrawi people in particular, will be attentive to this decisive choice.