It appears that the United Nations Security Council, preparing to vote on the amended draft resolution regarding the Moroccan Sahara issue, is opening the door to a qualitative shift in how the international community addresses this longstanding regional conflict. The leaked draft clearly refers to “autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty as a negotiation framework”, moving beyond neutral diplomatic phrasing to suggest that this concept is the most feasible solution.
This new wording does not appear by chance. It reflects decades of Moroccan political and diplomatic efforts. Since Morocco presented its autonomy proposal on April 11, 2007, under King Mohammed VI’s direct guidance, Rabat has adopted a realistic approach rather than rhetorical slogans, based on the principle of a practical, sustainable, and dignified solution that ensures local populations’ welfare while preserving territorial unity. Today, this approach seems gradually gaining acceptance among Security Council members, including those who previously favored ambiguity.
Yet the pressing question remains: are we witnessing a genuine shift in the UN’s stance, or merely a linguistic adaptation reflecting current diplomatic balances?
The explicit inclusion of “genuine autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty” in the draft represents a precedent. For the first time, it links the idea of an equitable solution with national sovereignty, providing Morocco with a strategic diplomatic advantage while undermining the separatist narrative that relied on ambiguity.
Moreover, extending the MINURSO mandate until October 2026, paired with the call for parties to engage in direct negotiations without preconditions, signals the UN’s desire to move from conflict management to serious pursuit of a final settlement. The international community increasingly recognizes that maintaining the status quo is no longer viable and that regional developments — including shifts in Algeria and the Sahel — demand a pragmatic approach.
The language connecting the right to self-determination of Sahrawi populations to the autonomy framework is particularly astute: it ensures that democratic choice occurs within the Moroccan framework, not outside it.
A deeper question thus emerges for the thoughtful reader:
Has Morocco achieved a diplomatic victory, or is the international community simply beginning to reconcile with geopolitical logic and on-the-ground realities?
The stance of several countries — from Washington to Madrid, Berlin to The Hague — is not mere diplomatic courtesy; it reflects acknowledgment that Morocco is the only actor capable of ensuring regional stability in an area beset by security and ideological challenges. Consequently, the autonomy proposal is no longer merely a Moroccan initiative but is evolving into an international tool for restoring security in the Western Mediterranean and the Sahel region.
Ultimately, if the Security Council appears to place autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty at the heart of the resolution, the next phase will require Rabat to manage negotiations skillfully, as diplomatic victories are forged not only in texts but also through turning political recognition into economic and developmental realities in the southern regions.
The question remains open:
Are we at the dawn of a historic turning point for the Sahara, or merely at another stage in the Security Council’s balancing act?
What is certain is that time is working in favor of the Moroccan proposal, and the UN, despite its legendary slowness, is beginning to realize that Moroccan reality is not merely a political stance, but a regional stability project that extends beyond the Sahara’s borders.
