Algeria’s current rhetoric on the Moroccan Sahara and its talk of solidarity and self-determination for the Sahrawi people are “mere facades” concealing more pragmatic objectives, argues François Soudan, a political analyst, and Editor in Chief of the pan-African magazine Jeune Afrique.
In an analysis piece, Soudan maintains that Algeria should spare the world “speeches about the duty of militant solidarity and the right of peoples to self-determination,” as these concepts, when coming from states, can only conceal “mundane interests.”
For Soudan, Algeria’s support for the Polisario Front and their separatist agenda primarily serves to secure Algeria an Atlantic outlet through a “proxy state.” The creation of such a state would also “sever Morocco from any extension toward sub-Saharan Africa.”
By supporting a separatist entity in Western Sahara, Algeria aims to limit Morocco’s influence and extend its own reach into the Atlantic. The strategic positioning would help Algeria maintain a dominant military and economic balance in the region, exacerbating instability in the already vulnerable Sahel.
Tracing the Origins of the Dispute
As François Soudan points out, the ongoing dispute over the Sahara is not merely about territorial claims but also about deeper strategic interests that have evolved over decades.
He maintains that Algeria’s opposition to Morocco’s sovereignty over the region is rooted in a desire to create a geopolitical buffer to secure its own strategic interests.
The Sahara dispute is “existential” for the “ruling politico-military dyarchy.” In the eyes of Algeria’s high command, the dispute, coupled with Rabat’s decision to normalize relations with Israel, justifies their substantial military spending.
Algeria’s military expenditure rose to $18 billion in 2023 (compared to $5.2 billion for Morocco), placing Algeria among the top three worldwide in terms of military spending relative to GDP.
For the Algerian military elite, the spending is not only a tool for regional influence but also a means of sustaining their own power and political relevance, according to the political analyst.
“For the military high command, this impressive budget is also a lifeline that allows it to remain at the heart of power and play the role of arbiter,” the analysis reads.
Ending the dispute would effectively weaken Algeria’s influence and “reduce it to a politically silent force, a prospect it finds unacceptable.”
The existential aspect of the dispute largely explains why, despite being a supposedly “interested party” in the Sahara issue, Algeria reacted as a “party to the conflict” in denouncing France’s decision to recognize the Moroccan autonomy plan as the only solution.
In his analysis, Soudan defends the Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, explaining that the Sahrawis “are Moroccans, and always have been.”
“Moroccans who were perhaps a bit different, with sometimes fickle allegiances, but who had for centuries prayed in the name of the king and participated in that unique form of belonging to the Moroccan nation, both personal and religious,” the analysis reads.
The author adds that the Sahrawis “owe” King Mohammed VI for “preserving their cultural identity and benefiting from the accelerated development of their region—facts that are easily verifiable for anyone who takes the time to visit.”
The piece concluded that Soudan laments the consequences of Algeria’s regional ambitions, noting that Algeria’s relentless undermining of Morocco’s sovereignty has driven a wedge between the people of the two nations, rendering them “estranged brothers”.