These days, we do not stop reading and hearing about the expected American mediation to achieve a “peace” agreement that will be reached after “sixty days.” At the same time, American decision-makers moved within the corridors of the UN Security Council in cooperation with Paris and Britain to impose the “expanded autonomy” project as a final solution. Can America impose its project in the region? Is the peace you are looking for possible in such circumstances? What is behind American mediation in North Africa?
Who can refuse peace? No one, of course, especially if we take into account the enormous losses caused by the “half” century conflict. It is true that these initiatives in such circumstances deserve praise, praise and appreciation, but peace will not be addressed with a unilateral logic or with a logic of barter, and the optimism that is promoted that the existing crisis between the two countries may be resolved within “sixty days” is very wrong because the roots of the conflict are deeper and greater than To be reduced to one or two files, the President of the Republic, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, was frank and clear in the speech he delivered a short time ago to the army commanders, where he said: “The borders were not closed because of the Western Sahara issue, but they were closed for other reasons, 63 years of independence, our borders were closed for more than 45 years.” This leads us, of course, to talk about the nature of the reasons that pushed Algeria to… The first of these was the severing of relations with Morocco: what was done by Morocco’s ambassador to the United Nations, Omar Hilal, during a meeting of non-aligned countries held on July 13 and 14, 2021, where he called for “the independence of the people of the Kabylie region” after former Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra announced his support for the right to self-determination for the people of the Sahara.
Peace’s success is less than minimal
There is another “stumbling block” that undermines the dream of US President Donald Trump and makes everyone realize that the success of peace is less than minimal: the comprehensive and public normalization deal with the Zionist entity, according to which recognitions were exchanged: Morocco recognizes the Zionist entity’s sovereignty over Palestine in exchange for the entity and Trump – Trump alone – recognizing the Makhzen’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, and for the Zionist entity’s bases to be located in Morocco created a direct clash with Algeria and with the countries that rejected normalization in the region. In return, the entity took advantage of the normalization treaty, made an important breakthrough in its favor, legitimized the trade and cultivation of drugs and made it a priority. Today, it is trying to flood us with cents of it, and the “Escobar in the Desert” case is conclusive evidence of that.
Another reason is the issue of Western Sahara, which is suffering under two conflicting scenarios. First, the scenario of force that Washington seeks to impose as a final solution through the “expanded autonomy” project, while the second is related to the logic of legitimacy for which Algeria is pleading. For many decades, it is the rejection of any settlement that does not pass through a free and fair referendum, which is what President Abdelmadjid Tebboune confirmed in the aforementioned speech, when he said: “With regard to the issue of Western Sahara, it is an issue related to decolonization, like the last colony in Africa, and it is in the hands of the United Nations, and there are great countries seeking to resolve the issue and we hope that it will be resolved. Our position is clear, no party threatens us, whatever it may be, nor does it We care about those who criticize our positions. The Sahrawis must take their rights.” Then he went on to say: “We are no more Sahrawi than the Sahrawis. Any solution that the Sahrawis accept, we accept, but as long as we are in the vicinity of the Sahrawis, we will not allow any party to impose on them any solution that they do not accept. The equation is as simple as this.”
All of these indicators make Algeria reject mediation and bet on the possibility of reaching mutual understandings without the need for mediation, that is, repeating the “February 2013 understandings” scenario, as the two parties then reached a formula of political understandings related to cooperation in combating terrorism and drug trafficking, limiting mutual media campaigns, placing the issue of Western Sahara within its international framework, and beginning the exchange of visits between ministers and sectoral cooperation. Indeed, visits were exchanged, but the breakthrough did not last long.
What is striking and striking about Witkoff’s statements regarding what he called the peace agreement between Algeria and Morocco within two months is his use of the term peace in a way that suggests the existence of an ongoing war between the two countries. In this context, the head of the National Construction Movement, Abdelkader Ben Qarena, expressed his astonishment and disapproval at Witkoff’s use of this term, indicating that relations between the two countries are not at all in a state of war until a peace path is launched and one party intervenes in it. Third, today it is in a state of diplomatic rupture imposed by reckless Moroccan policies to undermine the unity of the Algerian nation, and the Makhzen circles have invested in this statement.
Professor Nour Al-Sabah Aknoush, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Biskra, said in his interview with “Algeria Al-Jadeed” that “it is absolutely not possible to approach Washington’s behavior within the framework of the American peace theory, which was applied in the Middle East for one reason, which is that the regional environment in North Africa is different due to many factors.”
Dominance directives
What American decision-makers are seeking is crystal clear, and the spokesman believes that it “falls within a comprehensive path to achieve Americanization of the region in the language of interests in light of the game of nations with Russia, China, and other powers competing over the region’s wealth and resources.” Aknoush followed in the footsteps of Ben Qurayna, when he said, “The settlement between the Polisario and the Makhzen regime was supposed to be presented, and any other vision outside the box, so to speak, would reflect negatively on the geopolitical balance in the region, especially since the American role is considered an intruder in the region, and the concepts and tools of American foreign policy that operate in the Middle East are difficult to project onto Western Sahara, which objectively must be settled within the framework of the United Nations and not the United States.” “United.”
The “expanded self-government” project that Washington seeks to impose as a final solution in coordination with the British and French is nothing but an attempt to consolidate colonialism in another way, ignoring the inalienable right of the people of the Sahara to self-determination, and in a comment on the settlement plan, the features of which have not yet been clarified nor the method of its management except for its specified time period of two months, the head of the Movement for a Society for Peace, Abdelali Hassani, said, Yesterday, “Washington’s policy in settling the issue of Western Sahara and several conflicts in the world stems from the directives of hegemony.
Hassani said: “Peace for them, according to the new logic, is not ending wars, but rather using force to end wars,” indicating that this path neglects and ignores all the other data and elements that constitute the peace process, such as the right to self-determination of peoples and their interests, dialogue, and dismantling the crisis, to achieve a real and sustainable peace. The speaker strongly criticized “the peace process that comes through orders from the United States, and considers it linked to American interests.” And maintaining its control over areas of wealth, more than the interests of the people,” and Hassani went further than this when he compared Addressing conflicts with this logic, as happened in the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, despite its blessing from the movement. However, this is still, in Hassani’s view, a booby-trapped agreement that was approved to serve the oppressed people.
The former minister and diplomat, Abdelaziz Rahabi, followed in the same footsteps. He stated in a post on his page on the social networking site “Facebook” entitled “Western Sahara and Trump’s deal-based diplomacy,” that the initiative, which is “difficult to describe,” is “strange, especially since Algeria did not officially participate in what could be considered excessive activity on the part of President Trump and his deal-based diplomacy.”“What appears to be a benign endeavor between Algeria and Morocco, continues the former Minister of Information, is in fact a coordinated influence process between the United States, France and Britain in the Security Council, which has turned into a tool to confirm their positions, especially regarding Western Sahara. Rehabi believes that the three powers presented a draft text “granting the Council the possibility of transferring Sahrawi sovereignty to the occupying power and presenting this as a token of normalizing relations between Algeria and Morocco.”“.
Deals in a neo-colonial spirit
In his political diagnosis of the deal, the speaker linked these two cases, concluding that the project “stems from a neo-colonial spirit, and falsely presents Algeria as a party to this process in which it has no interest other than appearing to submit to external pressures.” The former diplomat continued: “Paris, which is the mastermind and material mind of the ‘Moroccan autonomy plan,’ is currently working on amending it to make it readable along the lines of a model.” New Caledonia,” referring to the current path in New Caledonia, between independence and autonomy within the framework of French sovereignty, in the form of a popular referendum, which is likely to choose secession..
As for the English, “who have long defended the right to self-determination,” Rahabi believes that they are “stuck in their history, and for this reason, as is the case recently for Russia,” “expanded autonomy” can be considered a form of expression of the right to self-determination. “Independent,” and therefore “it must be able to benefit legitimately from this shift in English diplomatic doctrine.” However, he adds, this time it is the United States that has done everything in its power to organize a large-scale operation aimed at: presenting the Sahrawi problem as a dispute between Algeria and Morocco, and legitimizing the occupation of Western Sahara. In this regard, Rehabi indicated that America is working to stabilize its ally, the Kingdom of Morocco, all the way to “He offered to grant the Popular Front for the Liberation of Western Sahara expanded autonomy or even part of its historical territory without consulting the people“.Rehabi attributed the United States’ initiative to the latter’s concern “about the growing multifaceted Russian and Chinese presence in Africa.”
Because of its inability to rely on the modest capabilities of its African allies on the Atlantic coast, the spokesman added, the United States seeks to strengthen its presence in the Sahel region, a vast region suffering from lawlessness, witnessing major unrest and posing a real terrorist threat. Rehabi ruled out the success of the same approaches that were implemented in the Middle East and North Africa, saying: “It is difficult to believe that the problems of our region will be solved in the same way.” Middle East style, that is, with fragile balances, financial promises, negotiated diplomacy, and resonant declarations without direct and unconditional negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations between the Polisario and Morocco.” It is unrealistic for Rehabi to “reach a just, lasting and final solution to the Sahrawi issue,” based on perceptions like these.
#AlgeriaMorocco. #stumbling #stones #undermine #sixtyday #peace #Algeria
oussama_boulegheb
