Western Sahara: Polisario Hardens Stance Following UN Resolution

The adoption of a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Western Sahara has reignited tensions between Rabat and the Polisario Front, underscoring the widening divide between diplomatic recognition of Morocco’s autonomy plan and Sahrawi demands for self-determination.

While the text extends MINURSO’s mandate for another year and hails Morocco’s autonomy proposal as a “serious and realistic basis for negotiation,” the Polisario Front denounces what it views as a systematic erosion of the referendum principle. The outcome reveals a fragile equilibrium within the UN framework — one increasingly defined by geopolitical alignment rather than consensus.

Polisario: “Between becoming Moroccan or resisting — we will resist.”

In a statement to Spain’s RTVE from the Tindouf refugee camps (Algeria), Polisario’s “prime minister” Buchraya Hamudi Beyoun reaffirmed that the movement remains open to negotiations, but only under one condition — that “the Sahrawi people decide their own future.”

“Between becoming Moroccan or resisting — we will resist,” Beyoun declared, framing the UN resolution as yet another attempt to normalize Moroccan sovereignty without the people’s consent.

For the Polisario, the new resolution relegates the promise of a referendum to the background, privileging Morocco’s autonomy framework. The movement argues that this approach, shaped by Western influence and Moroccan lobbying, sidelines international legality in favour of political pragmatism.

Abstentions and Absences: A Divided Security Council

The absence of Algeria from the vote — described by Beyoun as a “de facto veto” — and the abstentions of Russia and China reflect a fractured international front. The Polisario interprets these gestures as signs of resistance to a resolution perceived as overly aligned with U.S. and French positions.

Although the resolution reiterates the need for a “mutually acceptable” political solution, its wording stops short of explicitly affirming a referendum on self-determination, a development the Polisario views as strategically intentional. In Beyoun’s words, the text “does not stipulate that the Sahrawi people must accept autonomy — not at all.”

For the Sahrawi leadership, this cautious phrasing reveals deep diplomatic fatigue and a growing asymmetry of influence — where Moroccan allies shape the narrative while Sahrawi representation remains confined to symbolic recognition.

Morocco: Consolidation of Diplomatic Advantage

Rabat, supported by France, the United States, and Israel, presents the resolution as a validation of its sovereignty narrative and a testament to the durability of its autonomy proposal. The Moroccan position portrays the issue as settled, with the focus now on “regional stability” and “economic integration.”

Yet, Polisario officials insist that military balance alone cannot determine legitimacy.

“The Morocco we face today cannot defeat us militarily, nor convince us politically,” Beyoun said.

He argues that after nearly five decades of stalemate, the Sahrawi resistance has institutionalized its endurance, turning longevity itself into a form of strategic leverage.

A Process Losing Credibility

The UN mediation framework now appears strained between pragmatism and principle. Western capitals favour a political compromise that protects Moroccan stability, while the Sahrawi movement clings to the referendum mandate originally entrusted to MINURSO.

On the ground, the truce remains tenuous but unbroken, marked by sporadic skirmishes in buffer zones and periodic Moroccan drone strikes on suspected Polisario positions. Diplomatically, however, the conflict has entered a phase of managed stagnation — a frozen dispute sustained by competing narratives rather than military escalation.

ASA Assessment: Tactical Victory, Strategic Deadlock

For Rabat, the new UN resolution represents a tactical consolidation of its international legitimacy — securing Western backing while maintaining control over the pace and framing of negotiations.

For the Polisario, the decision marks another diplomatic setback, yet also a strategic validation of its endurance and symbolic defiance. The movement continues to leverage the discourse of resistance and legitimacy, betting on time, fatigue, and moral capital to sustain its cause.

In operational terms, the UN process is increasingly transactional, oriented toward preserving calm rather than resolving the core dispute. The autonomy paradigm gains momentum abroad, but without a mechanism to include Sahrawi consent, it risks producing a political settlement without legitimacy.

Outlook

• Short-term: Low probability of renewed large-scale fighting but heightened diplomatic polarization between Morocco’s allies and states favouring Sahrawi self-determination.
• Medium-term: The Polisario likely to pursue a dual strategy of symbolic military activity and international advocacy to counter Moroccan diplomatic dominance.
• Long-term: Without a credible path toward a negotiated referendum or shared sovereignty model, the Sahara question will persist as a frozen conflict — stable militarily, but unresolved politically.

ASA Conclusion:
The 2025 UN resolution secures short-term calm but deepens the long-term legitimacy crisis of the Western Sahara peace process. The conflict remains less about territory than about recognition — and the competing sovereignties of narrative, diplomacy, and endurance.