It has been a glib month for global diplomacy. Reports of mass graves being dug by the Rapid Support Forces after their takeover of El Fasher in Sudan have grabbed headlines in war that has been neglected by the mainstream media. After two years of fighting, failed diplomatic efforts and thousands of civilians continuing to lose their lives, the African Union and the United Nations are again standing on the sidelines as one continent’s worst conflict unfolds.
A recent United Nations Security Council Resolution on Western Sahara is being touted as a victory and a turning point by Morocco, however, analysts argue it offers no meaningful progress in one of the world’s longest running conflicts. The recent resolution is just another twist in a long running saga where there is still no end in sight.
While Morocco is celebrating it as another World Cup victory, this resolution in fact does not affirm Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and does not shelve the claim for self-determination. The resolution makes contradictory statements ranging from “discussions without preconditions,” while also claiming that these discussions will be “taking as basis Morocco’s Autonomy Proposal with a view to achieving a final and mutually acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.” The Resolution also “recognizes that genuine autonomy could represent a most feasible outcome and encourages the parties to submit ideas to support a final mutually acceptable solution.” The contradictory language leaves parties to pick and choose whatever parts of the resolution suit their political interests.
Whatever happens in the Security Council, the fact remains that no solution can be imposed from outside, by the United States or the UN acting on its behalf. An end to the conflict can only emerge from within the Maghreb region itself, with no foreign interference, through a combination of efforts that include dialogue between Morocco and the Polisario, an intra-Saharawi dialogue and a Morocco-Algeria bilateral track. Civil society in Maghreb countries could play a role encouraging and supporting these tracks. Leaders must engage with one another directly and discretely – diplomacy cannot succeed through press conferences and public speeches alone. A first step would be for all actors to cooperate to tone down their inflammatory propaganda machines.
Meanwhile, in Morocco, after a wave of GenZ protests, hundreds of youths and dozens of children who were arrested, are being funneled through courts, and tried in proceedings that don’t meet international standards. Ironically, against this background Morocco still hopes that the Polisario will lay down their arms and join the Moroccan Kingdom, when hundreds of Moroccan youth are being imprisoned for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression.
In Gaza, a fragile ceasefire continues to hold, amidst ongoing bombing and killing of Palestinians. The governance arrangements for post-war Gaza, still remain vague, but one thing that is very clear is that Palestinians are unanimous in their rejection of an international body governing Gaza.
Optimism about the administration of President Donald J. Trump ending the conflict in Ukraine has waned. Reality has sunk that any mediation process will likely be more complicated than envisioned and prospects for a ceasefire remain elusive.
And in all of these conflicts the ‘good offices’ of the UN Secretary General are nowhere to be seen.
In this edition of Diplomacy Now, five authors offer important perspectives on mediation in Gaza, Ukraine, and Western Sahara, the ongoing conflict in Sudan and the simmering political rivalry between Morocco and Algeria.
As with every edition the views expressed by contributors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
Palestinian-American-British lawyer Dr. Jamal Nusseibeh explores what an International Stabilization Force in Gaza might look like, and what it would need to succeed in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories at large.
“In order to avoid a repeat failure that will further entrench the status quo of an illegal occupation of Palestine without accountability for Israel, including for atrocities in Gaza, a UN-mandated international peacekeeping force is essential for peace between Israelis and Palestinians (or Israel and Palestine), but it must enter as part of a holistic structure founded upon rights and accountability,” Dr. Nusseibeh rights.
“A proposed UN Security Council Resolution that avoids these questions and attempts to introduce an “International Stabilization Force” without reference to the operable international legal framework or without respect for Palestinian sovereignty, will be rejected by Palestinians, as well as by many of the countries that whose involvement is necessary to provide forces and funding for the operation,” he adds.
International legal scholar Dr. Paul R. Williams and Sindija Beta explore the debates as to which states might serve as mediators in the Russia-Ukraine conflict that will enter its fourth year in the coming months. Dr. Williams and Beta argue that Russia’s crime of aggression and violation of international law mean that this conflict cannot be mediated in the same way many conflicts between states are.
“A mediation approach based on false equivalence imbeds into the process an assumption that both parties to a conflict bear some degree of responsibility and are willing to compromise. In Ukraine, this assumption is not only inaccurate — it is legally and strategically indefensible. Russia’s conduct is not a matter of contested grievances. It is a sustained campaign of aggression, occupation, and atrocity. Ukraine, by contrast, is defending its sovereignty under international law,” they write. “Yet calls for “neutral mediation” continue to circulate. This framing obscures legal clarity,” they continue.
Longtime State Department Diplomat and former United Nations envoy to Western Sahara Christopher Ross, examines the recent and controversial Security Council resolution. Despite being touted by the US and the Moroccan government as a step forward, he argues that it is a step back in finding a resolution to one of the world’s longest running conflicts.
“Selective pressure in favor of Morocco, as this resolution attempts, will not help,” Ross writes. “It will make the parties only dig in further. Morocco will seek even more support worldwide and the Polisario and Algeria will stiffen their opposition. In such a situation, where mutual respect and trust are absent, none of the parties is motivated to work for a solution. If the US ends up hosting meetings and tries to mediate a compromise “deal” to add to its list of conflicts resolved, its efforts will fall on deaf ears.”
Scholar Hamza Meddeb explores the ways in which Morocco and Algeria are using economic incentives to jockey for political influence and power in the Sahel and West Africa.
“The long-standing rivalry between Morocco and Algeria has recently seen both countries making strategic use of economic tools, especially in trade and the energy sector, to project power, forge new alliances, and engage in strong-arm tactics against European countries, Essentially, Algeria and Morocco are employing economic statecraft to carve out regional leadership roles for themselves in North and West Africa,” Meddeb argues.
““The result is competing, yet at times also overlapping, spheres of influence. This ongoing development risks fuelling instability. Indeed, as the rivalry between Morocco and Algeria deepens and assumes new dimensions, two key consequences are likely to emerge.”
Lutz Oette and Nada Ali argue for the recognition of the unlawfulness of the coup in Sudan, which paved the way for the ongoing war. They say that any future peace process and transition must be civilian rather than military led.
“These actors have committed serious breaches of Sudan’s constitutional order and the law. They have also committed serious human rights violations (…) and thereafter violations of international humanitarian law and international crimes in the course of Sudan’s armed conflict,” Oette and Ali write.
“It is for the Sudanese people, through transitional, inclusive democratic processes, to determine what consequences these breaches should have. On the face of it, as emphasized in numerous statements by civil society actors and regional and international bodies, both the SAF and RSF and their political and military associates have forfeited any right to play a part in Sudan’s political future, given their unlawful, violent, and destructive conduct,” they conclude.
Nelson Mandela
