{"id":5062,"date":"2026-10-23T00:09:37","date_gmt":"2026-10-23T00:09:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/?p=5062"},"modified":"2026-10-23T14:11:48","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T14:11:48","slug":"ceuta-and-melilla-in-a-us-congressional-report-could-the-dispute-between-washington-and-madrid-become-leverage-in-calculations-involving-morocco","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/ceuta-and-melilla-in-a-us-congressional-report-could-the-dispute-between-washington-and-madrid-become-leverage-in-calculations-involving-morocco\/","title":{"rendered":"Ceuta and Melilla in a US Congressional Report: Could the Dispute Between Washington and Madrid Become Leverage in Calculations Involving Morocco?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-pm-slice=\"1 1 []\">The return of Ceuta and Melilla to the American political debate cannot be reduced to a phrase contained in a report by the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. Prepared on April 30, 2026, and the subject of debate in Spain in May, the document describes the two cities as being located on Moroccan territory while administered by Spain. It also recommends encouraging diplomatic dialogue between Rabat and Madrid on their future status. Subsequent developments, however, have highlighted the limits of what can be inferred from that wording, while demonstrating that the debate extends beyond the terminology used in a congressional document.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The report accompanying the proposed US appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2027 did not decide to transfer sovereignty over the two cities to Morocco. Nor did it announce a new American recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over them. Republican Representative Mario D\u00edaz-Balart, who was associated with the report&#8217;s preparation, said, according to accounts published by the Spanish press, that the reference did not mean a change in the official US position or a demand to transfer the two cities to Morocco.<\/p>\n<div class=\"youtube-embed\" data-video_id=\"qY3XnClZyX8\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"\u00daLTIMA HORA: El Congreso de EE.UU. pone por escrito que Ceuta y Melilla son \u201cterritorio marroqu\u00ed\u201d.\" width=\"696\" height=\"392\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/qY3XnClZyX8?feature=oembed&#038;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">That distinction is essential. The inclusion of the issue in a report by a committee influential in shaping American budget priorities and foreign policy deserves examination in light of its actual significance: neither as a sovereign decision nor as a text devoid of political implications.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">A congressional document that opens a diplomatic avenue without settling sovereignty<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The passage concerning Morocco contains two principal elements. The first describes Ceuta and Melilla as cities administered by Spain and located on Moroccan territory. The second supports the efforts of the US secretary of state to encourage diplomatic engagement between Morocco and Spain regarding their future status.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The combination of these two formulations matters. The document does more than refer to Morocco&#8217;s longstanding claim: it also places the issue within the scope of a diplomatic initiative that the secretary of state could encourage. But calling for dialogue does not, in itself, mean endorsing a particular outcome. Likewise, a geographical or political description in a committee report is not sufficient to establish a change in the official recognition of sovereignty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The explanatory report accompanying a bill must therefore be distinguished from the legislative text itself. The former does not automatically carry the legal effects of the latter. Spanish fact-checking reports have noted that the reference to Ceuta and Melilla appeared in the explanatory report accompanying the proposal, rather than in the text of the bill itself.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The document therefore provides evidence that a congressional committee expressed a position and supported an effort to encourage diplomatic dialogue. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US administration decided to change its position or that Washington and Rabat agreed on a negotiating process concerning the two cities.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This distinction between the legislative and executive branches was central to a televised discussion of the report, although the two researchers taking part differed in their assessment of its political significance.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">What does the report reveal about relations between Washington and Madrid?<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During the televised discussion, Fadi Helani, a researcher at the National Council on Arab-American Relations, argued that the document could reflect a particular outlook or prevailing mood within some circles of the US administration. He pointed to Mario D\u00edaz-Balart&#8217;s political proximity to influential Republican figures and to what he described as a period marked by a more pragmatic approach to international relations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Salah Qirata, a researcher in political science and international relations, offered a different emphasis. He stressed that Congress is not, by itself, the executive authority responsible for determining American diplomatic policy. Statements from the White House and the State Department, together with official communications between capitals, remain the more decisive indicators, in his view.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These are political interpretations, not proof in themselves that a decision has been taken within the US administration to challenge Spanish sovereignty over the two cities. Their contrast nevertheless highlights an institutional question: how should a congressional document be interpreted when its contents intersect with existing disagreements between two US allies?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">D\u00edaz-Balart&#8217;s role in preparing the report and the inclusion of the issue in a document addressing national security appropriations, the State Department and related programmes give the reference particular political interest. However, political proximity to administration officials does not constitute an official mandate to speak on their behalf, nor does it independently establish coordination over Ceuta and Melilla.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most rigorous reading is therefore to treat the report as a congressional intervention that places the issue on the diplomatic debate agenda without determining its outcome.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">From congressional controversy to the official American position<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The controversy did not remain confined to interpretations of the report. On August 6, 2026, according to press reports, US State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott reaffirmed explicit American support for Spanish sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla. The statement distinguished the administration&#8217;s official position from the wording in the congressional report. It also included criticism of the Spanish government&#8217;s handling of the migration crisis that affected Ceuta at the end of July.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This development matters because it provides direct evidence of the position expressed by the competent American executive authority on foreign policy. It carries greater weight in establishing the official position than interpretations drawn from a congressional report.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">That statement does not erase the controversy caused by the committee&#8217;s wording. It does, however, prevent that wording from being presented as American recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the two cities. Nor does it justify claiming that Washington decided to open official negotiations on their status, since the available information does not establish that such an executive decision was made.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The issue, therefore, is not only what the report said, but whether the call for dialogue will remain a congressional recommendation or become an announced diplomatic initiative. At this stage, the document alone does not establish that the transition from one to the other has occurred.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Morocco in American strategic calculations: partnership does not mean identical positions<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During the televised discussion, Helani linked Morocco&#8217;s importance in American strategic calculations to the possibility that Donald Trump&#8217;s pragmatism could make room for unconventional decisions. He referred in particular to the US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, announced in December 2020 during Trump&#8217;s first term, as part of the announcement that Morocco and Israel would resume relations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">That episode is documented. It does not, however, prove that Washington will reproduce the same mechanism in the case of Ceuta and Melilla. The American recognition concerning the Sahara was an announced and clearly defined decision linked to identifiable political and diplomatic arrangements. The current report, by contrast, recommends encouraging dialogue between Morocco and Spain without announcing a comparable change in the American position on the two cities.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The comparison between the two issues requires a distinction between the strength of the Moroccan-American partnership and the specific nature of each sovereignty dispute and bilateral relationship. The precedent concerning the Sahara does not automatically point to a similar outcome for Ceuta and Melilla. Conversely, political calculations could change in the future, but there is no evidence that such a shift has already become official policy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The partnership between Rabat and Washington rests on strategic, security, military and economic interests. Yet the existence of those interests does not prove that consultations have taken place over the future of the two cities. During the programme, Helani himself acknowledged that he could not confirm the existence of US-Moroccan consultations on Ceuta and Melilla, despite describing a high level of coordination between the two countries in other areas.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This distinction sets a clear limit on what can be inferred from bilateral relations: the existence of broad strategic coordination does not, by itself, establish a specific agreement on a sensitive regional issue.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Madrid&#8217;s position: rejecting negotiations while weighing diplomatic relations<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The sensitivity of the issue cannot be separated from relations between the United States and Spain, particularly their differences over several international and defence matters. The televised discussion referred to disagreements over defence spending within NATO and Madrid&#8217;s refusal to allow its military bases to be used for American operations linked to Iran.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These disagreements help explain tensions between the two capitals. They do not, however, prove that the congressional report was drafted to punish Spain or pressure it over Ceuta and Melilla. Such an interpretation remains a hypothesis requiring independent evidence, such as explicit statements by decision-makers, internal documents or demonstrable links between the two issues.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Subsequent developments nevertheless show that Madrid did not treat the matter as merely a media controversy. On August 11, Spanish Foreign Minister Jos\u00e9 Manuel Albares reaffirmed the government&#8217;s commitment to Spanish sovereignty and territorial integrity during a visit to Ceuta. On August 22, Spain&#8217;s diplomatic service announced its categorical rejection of Moroccan claims concerning the two cities and said that it had conveyed its position through diplomatic channels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These statements show that the issue entered the realm of public diplomatic contention. They do not mean that Madrid agreed to negotiate sovereignty, nor that Washington adopted Morocco&#8217;s position. Spain explicitly rejected any alternative approach to the status of the two cities, while the US State Department confirmed its support for Spanish sovereignty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During the televised discussion, Qirata argued that Moroccan-Spanish relations were well established and had developed considerably, and that the reappearance of the issue should not be interpreted as an inevitable threat to those relations. But extensive economic and political cooperation does not eliminate historical disputes or guarantee that sensitive questions will remain outside international power dynamics.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The more cautious reading is that bilateral relations can combine broad cooperation with persistent disagreements over sovereignty. Assessing the impact of this issue on the future of relations between Rabat and Madrid requires examining concrete diplomatic steps rather than relying on predictions.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">American funding for Morocco: what do the figures actually prove?<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The report also refers to at least $40 million in support for Morocco through programmes connected to American security interests: $20 million under national security investment programmes and $20 million under foreign military financing.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Some commentary and publications have presented these amounts as if they were intended to support Morocco&#8217;s claim to Ceuta and Melilla or even finance their recovery. The information published about the report does not support that conclusion. The sums appear in the context of national security and military financing programmes; the document does not state that they are earmarked for transferring sovereignty over the two cities or for the use of force.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A further distinction is necessary between recommendations contained in a committee report, appropriations ultimately approved in the final legislative text, and funds actually disbursed under the applicable procedures. The mention of an amount in a report does not, by itself, establish that the money has been paid or that its purpose has changed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Placing these figures in their proper context prevents them from being used to support conclusions that the document does not contain. American-Moroccan security cooperation is real, but linking its funding to Ceuta and Melilla would require explicit evidence that is not provided by the available information.<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">What does the renewed attention mean for Morocco?<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The report offers Morocco an opportunity to bring its longstanding claim to the two cities back into a US political debate connected to foreign policy. It does not, however, constitute a definitive sovereignty gain or prove that Washington has adopted Morocco&#8217;s position.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The document establishes that a House committee supported encouraging diplomatic dialogue over the future status of Ceuta and Melilla. The subsequent State Department statement, for its part, confirmed the continuation of American support for Spanish sovereignty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">That distinction should guide the Moroccan reading of the episode. It would be mistaken to minimise the importance of the issue&#8217;s inclusion in a document produced by an influential American institution. It would be equally mistaken to turn that reference into an announcement of a strategic shift that has not been established.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The possibility that Washington might use the issue in its relations with Madrid remains a politically discussable hypothesis, particularly given the disagreements between the two countries. But it does not become fact simply because tensions exist or because the report&#8217;s author belongs to the Republican Party and has political ties to influential figures.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The decisive indicators will be whether the US administration announces an official initiative concerning the issue, whether it adopts concrete diplomatic measures to encourage dialogue, and how Rabat and Madrid respond to any such move. Until those indicators emerge, the report remains a development in the American political debate over Ceuta and Melilla, not a decision changing their status.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The established fact is that the issue has returned to discussion within an influential American institution and that the committee&#8217;s wording triggered debate extending beyond Washington to Madrid and Rabat. Whether this episode will lead to a change in American policy or the opening of a new diplomatic process remains uncertain on the evidence currently available.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The return of Ceuta and Melilla to the American political debate cannot be reduced to a phrase contained in a report by the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. Prepared on April 30, 2026, and the subject of debate in Spain in May, the document describes the two cities as being located on Moroccan territory [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":5063,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,43,42,41,76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-africa","category-asia-americas","category-europe-russia","category-middle-east","category-the-maghreb"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5062","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5062"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5062\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5064,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5062\/revisions\/5064"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5063"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/diplomatique.ma\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}