The Madrid Meeting and the Operationalization of UN Security Council Resolution 2797: A Geostrategic Assessment of the Moroccan Sahara File

The meeting held at the United States Embassy in Madrid on the Moroccan Sahara dispute, despite being described as “low-profile” and unofficially confidential, marked a decisive shift from declaratory diplomacy to the operational implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2797. The extensive diplomatic and media anticipation surrounding the meeting was not incidental; it was fueled by consistent leaks that gradually revealed the strategic weight of the encounter, until its core outcomes became almost undeniable.

Far from being a routine consultation, the Madrid meeting consolidated the effective oversight of the United States over the practical pathway toward resolving the dispute. This oversight is managerial in form but political in substance, extending logically from Washington’s recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern provinces and from its central role in shaping the most recent UN resolution. In this sense, the United States has moved from the position of political sponsor to that of operational guarantor of the settlement process.

Fixing the Table: Clarifying Parties and Responsibilities

One of the most consequential outcomes of the Madrid meeting was the clear determination of the parties seated at the negotiating table. The configuration is now explicitly quadrilateral, comprising Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania, represented by their foreign ministers, alongside a representative of the Polisario Front. This arrangement definitively puts an end to earlier attempts to reduce the conflict to an artificial bilateral framework or to evade direct political accountability.

By taking part in these discussions, Algeria has effectively assumed its role as a party to the dispute, engaging directly in the management of the transition toward a settlement. This engagement aligns with the implementation of the autonomy framework for the Moroccan Sahara, as stipulated in the Security Council resolution adopted on 31 October. Crucially, Algeria’s presence positions it not as a passive observer, but as a stakeholder co-responsible for shaping a viable outcome.

The “Observer” Narrative and Its Strategic Limits

Algerian media efforts to describe the country’s participation as that of a mere “observer” do little to alter the political reality. A roundtable negotiation admits no ambiguous statuses: those seated at the table are parties; observers remain outside the process. The insistence on semantic distinctions reflects the difficulty of transitioning from long-standing rejection of the UN framework to active engagement with it.

In this regard, it is notable that the Algerian leadership has reassessed its earlier outright refusal of the Security Council’s approach. Shifting from a position of rejection to one of interaction with the international settlement mechanism represents a significant political test. It requires the capacity to move beyond doctrinal premises that have shaped Algerian policy for nearly five decades. Within this context, President Abdelmadjid Tebboune appears to have privileged Algeria’s strategic interests over ideological rigidity.

Morocco’s Facilitation Strategy and the “No Victor, No Vanquished” Paradigm

In parallel, Morocco has continued to position itself as a facilitating actor in line with international expectations. Rabat has reiterated its readiness to address the core structural deadlock of the conflict—namely, the rupture of Moroccan-Algerian relations—through a framework grounded in pragmatism and mutual accommodation. The guiding principle is explicitly articulated as “no victor, no vanquished,” underscoring that Morocco seeks partnership rather than Algeria’s political defeat.

This approach is deeply rooted in the royal diplomacy consistently advocated by King Mohammed VI, who has repeatedly called for open dialogue and fraternal cooperation with Algeria. It is a strategy that blends geopolitical realism with historical consciousness, recognizing both shared developmental challenges and the enduring imperatives of neighborhood and regional stability.

From Secessionism to Autonomy: A Strategic Reorientation

Algeria’s participation in discussions aimed at effectively closing the chapter on the secessionist project and advancing an autonomy arrangement under Moroccan sovereignty constitutes a qualitative shift in its regional doctrine. Such a transformation inevitably entails internal and regional constraints, warranting international understanding of any apparent hesitations. Morocco, as the primary stakeholder in securing Algeria’s constructive engagement, has deliberately refrained from actions that could disrupt the international momentum surrounding the UN process.

Toward New York: Converging International Resolve

The Madrid meeting formally examined the detailed Moroccan autonomy proposal, which served as the sole substantive reference document for the discussions. This alone elevates the meeting beyond initial expectations, reinforcing the credibility of the autonomy framework as the central pillar of negotiations. The process has now gained significant momentum ahead of the April review meeting in New York, where progress toward compliance with Resolution 2797 will be assessed.

The strong alignment between American and European actors in advancing the resolution’s implementation substantially narrows the scope for procedural obstruction or diplomatic dilution. International resolve has reached a decisive phase, signaling a firm commitment to bringing the Moroccan Sahara dispute to a realistic and historically grounded conclusion. The Madrid meeting did not conclude the process, but it undeniably marked its strategic inflection point.