Rachid Achachi: Moroccan Sahara – what are the Brits playing at?
After the United States recognized the Moroccanness of the Sahara in 2020, many expected, myself included, that the United Kingdom would be among the first states to follow in the footsteps of the Americans, well before France. This expectation was at least legitimate, knowing the radical realism of the English and the expected consequences of Brexit in 2016.
Indeed, one of the logical consequences of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European straitjacket, following the 2016 referendum and the entry into force of this exit in 2020, was that the British rediscovered their legendary pragmatism and began to project themselves on a global scale, reconnecting with the vast spaces of their former colonial empire, while discovering new strategic perspectives.
In this perspective, a rapprochement with Morocco has indeed taken place, and positive signs could lead one to believe in an upcoming recognition of reality, in other words, of the historical and effective Moroccanness of the Sahara. For what is realism, if not respect for reality as it is?
However, at the same time as positive signals were coming from Downing Street, other, less positive ones tended to fall out of the blue. These range from the revelations by a British MP about the role of the British ambassador to Morocco, Simon Martin, in blocking London’s recognition of the Moroccanness of the Sahara , to the recent written response given to a Conservative MP by David Lammy, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs.
The Conservative MP’s question, which was asked on 8 January, concerned the potential implications of supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan for its policies regarding Western Sahara.
The Secretary of State’s response was: ” The UK continues to support UN-led efforts to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, based on compromise, which will secure the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. The UK strongly supports the work of Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara, and continues to encourage constructive engagement with the UN political process. The UK believes that this process is the best way to resolve the long-standing dispute by achieving a solution acceptable to all parties, which would contribute significantly to regional security and prosperity. “
The other explanatory element of this British ambivalence is that London continues to behave like an empire without having the means to do so. On the economic and military level, the means at London’s disposal are completely out of step with its foreign policy
This is a perfect example of the usual double-talk displayed by certain political and diplomatic leaders, who choose to hide behind outdated rhetoric in order to gain time while waiting to choose the right moment to take the plunge. But how can we explain this double-talk from London?
First, the United Kingdom, like any Western country, is not immune to the left-right divide and dialectic. In this state, this involves an uncompromising opposition between Labour and the Conservatives. The former, currently in power, today embody the most radical left on a societal level (wokeism, cancel culture, etc.) and the most anachronistic on a geopolitical level. The Conservatives, as their name suggests, are the guardians of British tradition in terms of both foreign policy and the economy.
Similarly, the signals about Morocco, whether positive or negative, are far from random. Most often, the positive signals come from the Conservatives, while the interference of a closer rapprochement with Morocco comes from the Labour camp.
Nothing new under the sun, since we find the same cyclicality in our relations with France or the United States, where each time the left is in power, with the Socialist Party in France and the Democratic Party in the United States, things rarely go as planned.
READ: Sami Hamdi: Trump relations with Algeria and Morocco
This is a reality that we have to deal with, even if the progress of our relations with certain countries is often held hostage, or at least slowed down, by ideological oppositions specific to these countries.
The other explanatory element of this British ambivalence is that London continues to behave like an empire without having the means to do so. On the economic and military level, the means at London’s disposal are completely out of step with its foreign policy. Whether in the Ukrainian issue, where it has played the role of chief warmonger since the beginning, or in the Libyan or Middle Eastern issues, the United Kingdom only pursues this policy, described as imperial by some, because it can generally count on the support of the United States. Support that is both financial and military and logistical.
READ: Rachid Achachi: Tu parles anglais, dude?
But while we can currently observe with the naked eye a very rare planetary alignment in the sky, on the geopolitical level, things seem to be taking a different turn.
The official inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States on 20 January is likely to bring the United Kingdom back to reality. Indeed, Trump’s stated desire to end the conflict in Ukraine, as well as his anti-woke policy and his desire to restore freedom of expression, which has been severely undermined in recent years in the West, are in total opposition to the policy pursued by the British Labour government since its installation last July.
In the field of diplomatic relations, it is certain that Trump will pick up where he left off in 2020, in particular by giving life to the American recognition of the Moroccanness of the Sahara, which the Democrats had somewhat put on hold. We should soon expect the opening of an American consulate in Dakhla, and probably major American investment projects in our southern provinces.
READ: CIA updates Morocco map to include Western Sahara
In such a context, will the British end up joining the same dynamic? Or will they decide to go it alone, at the risk of putting themselves at odds with the American project of consolidating and restoring the power of the West in the face of new challenges emanating from the Global South?
History will tell us. But in the meantime, I seriously wonder whether Anglo-Saxon realism has not definitively migrated from London to Washington.
Rachid Achachi is a consultant and respeccted commentator who writes for Le 360, which is where a french language version of this article originally appeared.
