Latest news with #BerlinConference
Libya Observer
3 days ago
- Politics
- Libya Observer
Mufti: Berlin Conference is a deception by Libya's enemies
Libya's Mufti, Sheikh Al-Sadiq Al-Gharyani, said that the third Berlin Conference, is part of the ongoing deception orchestrated by Libya's enemies. Speaking on Tanasuh TV on Wednesday, the Mufti said the countries meeting in Berlin are Western powers that control Libya's fate. He blamed participants of the Skhirat Agreement for Libya's past and present suffering. "All the evil inflicted on the Libyan people—aggression, plundering of wealth and resources, stripping of freedoms and sovereignty, prisons, arbitrary arrests, and standing with the enemy—as happened recently with the blockade of the convoy aiming to aid our brothers in Palestine—its burden lies with the figures of Skhirat who committed their act and then disowned it." He said. He questioned the outcome of the Berlin meeting, saying: "They will present us with the same production… the same figures will reappear in a new form, just like with Sarraj and the transitional governments." He asserted that 'Western countries know the right solution for Libya, but they deliberately seek to prolong the suffering and occupation.' "There is no enmity between the Americans and Russians, nor among Europeans—all of them are united in exploiting us. We face a Russian invasion brought by Haftar, Aguila Saleh, and the agents of the Zionists. We also face infiltration by regional countries through their intelligence services—all because of Berlin." The Mufti added. The Mufti called on the Libyan people to take to the streets in massive numbers to denounce what he described as a conspiracy. His remarks coincided with the third Berlin Conference, held under UN auspices and involving key international and regional players in the Libyan file, including Egypt, the UAE, the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and the African Union. The conference is not merely consultative—it is seen as an attempt to impose a new transitional roadmap, following the failure of all domestic Libyan initiatives to reach consensus on a constitutional basis and the continued deadlock in UN-led efforts to organize long-overdue elections. Tags: Libya's Grand Mufti Sheikh Al-Sadiq Al-Gharyani Berlin conference
IOL News
15-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
South Africa: the World Bank's fattened lamb for slaughter
The hubris of dividing Africa along borders drawn on lunch break napkins, for no other reason than to cannibalise it, seemed eerily similar to the ways of the World Bank and the IMF today. Image: Yuri Gripas/Reuters/File LEE Camp of the programme Unredacted makes incisive observations about the dark manoeuvres of the 1884 Berlin Conference. The hubris of dividing Africa along borders drawn on lunch break napkins, for no other reason than to cannibalise it, seemed eerily similar to the ways of the World Bank and the IMF today. From the same actors, continuing with the same insidious plans of plundering the vast mineral resources of the African continent, these Bretton Woods contraptions, with innocuously sounding names, became the latter-day agents of the Berlin Conference conspirators. If wild hogs, for whatever sinister reason, were to conference on the neighbour's corn yard, Lee calls it the Orgy of Pillaging. In the Mandela and Mbeki successive administrations, the clarity of the vision and the determination of the resolve were unequivocal. It was to square the apartheid debts, grow the economy and bolster the fiscus, a strategy that yielded an average of 4.2% growth year on year. The way to trivialise the success of this strategy, notwithstanding its weaknesses in reducing joblessness, was to claim that the prices of commodities were favourably high. Were this trivialisation rooted in political sentiment only, it would be understandable. But it has no bearing on scientific fact or economic reality. And the Zuma administration was heralded into office with a bountiful surplus. And for purposes of context, commodity prices have been way higher since 2009, or at least the prices of those commodities on which the 'favourably high' claim is predicated. Yet to the collective shock of all citizens, they have helplessly witnessed a diminishing economic growth, recording a few recessions along the way. To date, the country has borrowed oodles of money, eye-watering and mouth-dropping amounts! The gross loan debt has increased from R2.5 trillion in 2017 to R4.3trln in 2021. This means the government has borrowed an additional R1.8trln from both domestic and international investors. The debt has been so heavy on the country's purse, so much so that the Treasury honchos have to borrow an estimated R2 billion every day to service the interest on capital borrowed and to keep the failing heart of their ICU patient ticking. The Government of National Unity (GNU) is determined to borrow as much money as it can possibly sustain their mind-numbing vaudeville. It would have been entertaining if it were not so tragic. The chronology of events is disturbing. First, the exchequer announced that the taxman had over-collected taxes in 2025, to great applause. Then the sequence of events and their timelines get blurred and indistinguishable. Either before that announcement or contemporaneous to it, the geniuses at the Treasury went to Washington DC to apply for a loan of R26bn. Or how does the Minister account for the speed of approval of this amount shortly after the Constitutional Court ruled against a planned VAT increase? But someone or something had to keep the masses entertained. And the famous stage is our Tower of Babel, the parliament of the people. And the captivating showdown of all, between the two main endearing partners of the GNU, is guaranteed front row television viewership. The masses were entertained with a VAT increase imbroglio. It was rejected. And the World Bank approved the loan, all in great effort to avoid imposing the beneficiation tax on a sliding scale. John Perkins, renowned author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, has an insider articulation acuity. The World Bank and the IMF are frontline agents in the early stages of a regime change strategy. Beyond that stage, the creditors will take over the decision-making capabilities of the country or some government will be couped or someone will be swiftly murdered. For a country that boasts of the best constitution in the world, how does it account for the fact that its eminent provisions determining the powers of different branches of government are silent about the most egregious executive abuse of power? This is when the executive branch contracts into foreign debt on behalf of the state secretly, pledging the entire sovereignty of the people as collateral? It is not even helped by the fact that the preeminent conditionality for loans with the World Bank and the IMF is secrecy. Not even the representatives of the people convened in Parliament can know. It is very secret, they say. According to the late Minister of Public Enterprises, parliamentarians have to sign non-disclosure agreements. So much for voting. At least we now know what the term 'ruling elite' means. It refers to those people who have been given privileged sight of the loan terms of the World Bank and the IMF. Thomas Jefferson, from the vantage of his political heights, addressing his countrymen and countrywomen, once observed that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. And for a country led by the ANC, a political party with a long and profound history, spanning over a century of various political and economic stages of the forging of this country's nationhood, its incumbent leaders are determined not to learn anything about money or debt or even the mastery of their predecessors. It is a fairly documented epic of South Africa's complex historic narrative that the straw that broke the apartheid camel's back wasn't a straw. It was a crushing debt, and an irate mob of creditors beating at Darius Fourie's and Chris Stals' doors, Finance Minister and Reserve Bank Governor, respectively, who were at the service of the apartheid ignominy.
Boston Globe
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
What would the world be like with three superpowers?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's an idea that could lead to greater stability. Three stern bosses would govern their own regions, slapping down challengers and troublemakers. They would make major decisions together, or at least with respect for one another's security. Advertisement Their rule would also sharply limit the sovereignty of lesser powers that are near one of the three big ones. Canada, Ukraine, and Taiwan would have to follow orders from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Advertisement Orwell did not invent the idea of dividing vast regions into 'spheres of influence' for great powers. It emerged from the Berlin Conference of 1884, at which European powers divided Africa among themselves. Underlying it is the age-old principle that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must. Trump might relish the vision of sitting down to divide the world with two other autocrats, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. It would be a global version of the 1945 Yalta Conference, at which World War II victors decided the fate of European nations. In the modern age, though, it may not be practical. Nationalism and decolonization have shaped the current generation of leaders in much of the world. That makes it unlikely that smaller countries would now accept guidance from larger ones. Upstarts like Eritrea and Burkina Faso, not to mention middle powers like South Africa and Saudi Arabia, have already shown their willingness to challenge the global titans. Attempts to control them more tightly could lead them to rebel even more forcefully. Then there is the question of which countries would be the Big Three. In the 1980s, when Russia was tottering and China had not yet reached great-power status, the three forces that came closest to ruling the world were the United States, Japan, and Europe. Today it is clear that the United States and China belong in the top tier. Russia would be the most likely third member. All three of these countries, however, face serious domestic and foreign challenges. They may be top dogs today, but their positions are hardly unassailable. Upheaval in today's world is in part a result of their inability to control unruly disruptors. Advertisement An Asia ruled by India might someday be an alternative to the ruthlessness of the Russian and Chinese regimes. North and South America under Brazilian oversight might be more peaceful and socially just than they are under the wing of the United States. As for Europe, it is in the throes of an epochal identity crisis and no longer projects power as it did in past centuries. The greatest benefit of a tripartite division of the world is that it might lessen the threat of global destruction through nuclear war. Agreement among powerful nations could calm fears that might propel them toward apocalyptic decisions. Given the urgent reality of this threat, anything that lessens it is instantly appealing. Obstacles to the three-great-powers vision, though, are easy to identify. Today the United States considers most of the world to be its 'sphere of influence.' Drawing new lines would inevitably mean a shrinking of the American domain, something Washington is unlikely to accept. Then there is the question of where those lines would be. Imagining a new world map may be an amusing fantasy project. In real life establishing one would be all but impossible. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a new division of the world is the highly developed sensitivity of countries that have been victims of imperialism. The United States, Russia, and China were created by seizing land from others. All three have expanded their power at the expense of weaker countries. Those countries, some of them gathered in the BRICS bloc, sense a common threat. Persuading them to accept a return to obedient servitude would require a far better deal than the United States, Russia, or China is prepared to offer. Advertisement Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Boston Globe
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump's vision: One world, three powers?
'We all want to make deals,' Trump said in a recent interview with Time magazine. 'But I am this giant store. It's a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there.' Trump may have something even bigger in mind involving Russia and China, and it would be the ultimate deal. His actions and statements suggest he might be envisioning a world in which each of the three so-called great powers — the United States, China, and Russia — dominates its part of the globe, some foreign policy analysts say. It would be a throwback to a 19th-century style of imperial rule. Advertisement Trump has said he wants to take Greenland from Denmark, annex Canada, and reestablish US control of the Panama Canal. Those bids to extend US dominance in the Western Hemisphere are the clearest signs yet of his desire to create a sphere of influence in the nation's backyard. He has criticized allies and talked about withdrawing US troops from around the globe. That could benefit Russia and China, which seek to diminish the US security presence in Europe and Asia. Trump often praises President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping, China's leader, as strong and smart men who are his close friends. Advertisement To that end, Trump has been trying to formalize Russian control of some Ukrainian territory — and US access to Ukraine's minerals — as part of a potential peace deal that critics say would effectively carve up Ukraine, similar to what great powers did in the age of empires. Trump and Putin spoke about Ukraine in a two-hour phone call last week. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' Trump wrote on social media. Monica Duffy Toft, a professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School, said that the leaders of the United States, Russia, and China are all striving for 'an imaginary past that was freer and more glorious.' 'Commanding and extending spheres of influence appears to restore a fading sense of grandeur,' she wrote in a new essay in Foreign Affairs magazine. The term 'spheres of influence' originated at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, in which European powers adopted a formal plan to carve up Africa. Some close observers of Trump, including officials from his first administration, caution against thinking his actions and statements are strategic. While Trump might have strong, long-held attitudes about a handful of issues, notably immigration and trade, he does not have a vision of a world order, they argue. Yet there are signs that Trump and perhaps some of his aides are thinking in the manner that emperors once did when they conceived of spheres of influence. 'The best evidence is Trump's desire to expand America's overt sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere,' said Stephen Wertheim, a historian of US foreign policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Advertisement But setting up a sphere of influence in the post-imperial age is not easy, even for a superpower. Last month, Canadians elected an anti-Trump prime minister, Mark Carney, whose Liberal Party appeared destined to lose the election until Trump talked aggressively about Canada. Leaders of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, have rejected the idea of US control. Chinese officials are threatening to stop a Hong Kong company from selling its business running two ports in the Panama Canal to US investors. 'China will not give up its stakes in the Western Hemisphere so easily without a fight,' said Yun Sun, a China analyst at the Stimson Center in Washington. Even so, Trump and his aides persist in trying to exert greater US influence from the Arctic Circle to South America's Patagonia region. When Carney told Trump this month in the Oval Office that Canada was 'not for sale,' Trump replied: 'Never say never.' In March, Vice President JD Vance visited a US military base in Greenland to reiterate Trump's desire to take the territory. And it is no coincidence that Secretary of State Marco Rubio's two most substantial trips since taking office have been to Latin America and the Caribbean. In El Salvador, Rubio negotiated with Nayib Bukele, the strongman leader, to have the nation imprison immigrants deported by the US government, setting up what is effectively a US penal colony. Rubio also pressed Panama on its ports. On a late March visit to Suriname, Rubio was asked by a reporter whether administration officials had discussed setting up spheres of influence, which would entail negotiating limits on each superpower's footprint, including in Asia. Advertisement Rubio, who has more conventional foreign policy views than Trump, asserted that the United States would maintain its military alliances in Asia. Those alliances allow it to base troops across the region. 'We don't talk about spheres of influence,' he said. 'The United States is an Indo-Pacific nation. We have relationships with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. We're going to continue those relationships.' Some analysts say Trump's approach to the war in Ukraine is consistent with the concept of spheres of influence. The United States is talking to another large power — Russia — about how to define the borders of a smaller country and is itself trying to control natural resources. Trump has proposed terms of a settlement that would mostly benefit Russia, including US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and acknowledgment of Russian occupation of large swaths of eastern Ukraine. Last week, Trump even seemed to back off his demand that Russia agree to an immediate cease-fire with Ukraine. Earlier, he got Ukraine to sign an agreement to give US companies access to the country's minerals. Supporters of Trump's settlement proposal say it reflects the reality on the ground, as Ukraine struggles to oust the Russian occupiers. But Trump's praise of Putin and of Russia, and his persistent skepticism of America's role in NATO, has inflamed anxieties among European nations over a potentially waning US presence in their geographic sphere. The same is true of Taiwan and Asian security. Trump has voiced enough criticism of the island over the years, and showered enough accolades on Xi, that Taiwanese and US officials wonder whether he would waver on US arms support for Taiwan, which is mandated by a congressional act. Advertisement Trump says he wants to reach a deal with China. Whether that would go beyond tariffs to address issues such as Taiwan and the US military presence in Asia is an open question. 'Beijing would love to have a grand bargain with the US on spheres of influence,' said Sun, the China analyst, and 'its first and foremost focus will be on Taiwan.' This article originally appeared in
Morocco World
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Morocco World
Diplomacy, Context, and Misperception
Moroccans are fond of sayings and proverbs. They refer to sayings and proverbs to make an argument and justify a choice. Often, they add a scent of sacredness to make the reasoning credible. Sidi Abderrahmane el-Majdoub (1506-1568), Ahmed Ibn Ajiba al-Hassani (1747-1809), and Mansour al-Hallaj (858-922) are the most referred to when Sufism is taken into consideration. Some Moroccans, more familiar with the history of classical Middle Eastern literature, most often quote Abu Muhammed A. Ibn al-Muqaffa (724-759), whom they compare to Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695). In their understanding, twisting from one to the other is made when no argument is made. They fly over the eras and therefore fall into extrapolations and speculations. They don't take into account the context, although it is a fundamental rule in any self-respecting analysis. They close their eyes or ignore, for example, the tragic fate that Ibn al-Muqaffa suffered. He was mutilated, organ by organ, while tied to a tree to die a slow death. Each severed organ was thrown into a boiling vessel under a huge fire. This was his punishment for having a big mouth and underestimating the context of its time and despising Sofiane Ibn Maaouiya Ibn Yazid, governor of Basrah. The governor hated Ibn al-Muqaffa for being disrespectful to the ruling elite and for using pamphlet as a public nuisance. This was also true for La Fontaine's admirers. They placed him on a pedestal to plead their cases and to mock him when their opponents put him in the spotlight to taunt them. They ignore La Fontaine's redemption towards the end of his life when he asked forgiveness for the harm he would have caused through the Fables (1668, 1678, and 1694). The context is very important, without which, everything that is said and written, ignoring it, is not worth a candle. Well, the context is taken into account in this paper and it has a direct link with the issue of the Moroccan Sahara. Morocco was on the verge of suffering the fate of Ibn Al Muqaffa and the laughing stock of La Fontaine. Indeed, long before the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, the project of 'dividing' Morocco into separate entities was conceived, thought out and set in motion. Morocco is exposed and pushed towards a tree in the center (the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East) to be tied up in anticipation of the amputation of its essential organs. Morocco was then alone ( ( H. Hami: No Room for Dual-allegiance in Geopolitics, MWN; September 19, 2024). Let us proceed smoothly to emphasize the reading of the problematic of the context. This reading is associated with that of diplomacy, which is currently the subject of biased and unjustified attacks, particularly with regard to the issue of the Moroccan Sahara. When Masaad Boulos, special adviser to the US president for African and Middle Eastern affairs, made a far-fetched statement on the Al Arabiya channel on April 19, 2025, on the Sahara issue, Moroccan and Algerian commentators stepped up to the plate to make the reading they deemed relevant on the subject. On the Moroccan side, commentators, including respected academics, have gone to work quickly to make projections on Moroccan diplomacy. Most of them excel in making readings that are worth what they are worth in terms of hindsight and rigor. However, some analysts go even further. They therefore mix widely and mix eras. They show a flagrant ignorance of the context. They were quickly caught up in the element of surprise, the same one that plunged them into the rush to comment with no reservation as they are supposed to. Boulos amended his statement and confirmed, twenty-four hours later, that his words had been misinterpreted and that the United States clearly and unambiguously recognized Morocco's sovereignty over the Moroccan Sahara. Check mate for the detractors and the revengeful. In the wake of this, academics and experts in Maghreb affairs entered the fray and spoke of mistakes that Moroccan diplomacy had made since Morocco's independence in the management of the Moroccan Sahara issue. A statement as flat as it is ridiculous. Diplomacy is not a quiet river However, diplomacy is not rocket science. Foreign policy in general is not just the guiding principles that each country stands for. One could comment that everybody is aware of such an elementary fact. Indeed, diplomacy as a means to implement foreign policy has its secrets. It has, like all the professions in the world, its techniques, its rules, its dogmas, its men and women. What is it about? Suffice it to sit on a café terrace or stretch your legs when you're doing your ritual promenade park and somehow eavesdropping. You'd hear customers or walkers share all sorts of analyses and suppositions on domestic and international politics, all regions of the world combined. The Italian film 'We Loved Each Other So Much – C'eravamo tanto amati' by Ettore Scola, released in 1974, tells the story of three childhood friends played respectively by Nino Manfredi, a trade unionist, Stefano Satta Flores, an idealistic artist and Vittorio Gassman, a bourgeois. They meet to evoke their memories and, above all to assess their previous ideological choices. All three characters covet the friendship, beauty, and grace of Stefania Sandrelli, who represents for them the life they should have chosen. Beyond the aesthetic aspect, the film flies over a particularly troubled period in the history of Italy. It is ultimately characterized by an unnatural marriage between the Christian Democrat Party and the Lefts parties. Both were threatened by the far-left Marxist-Leninist militant group (the Red Brigades). Stefania represents Italy divided since the end of the Second World The three characters resume their normal lives. They are convinced that they cannot make concessions. Fifty years later, Italy finds itself in almost the same situation. We are faced with the same problem of context. Yet, politics and diplomacy consist of arrangements, agreements, alliances, and marriages that surprise neophytes and call into question the stereotypical readings of experts who are too full of their personalities and blinded by their aura à la carte. The context applies in the case of the establishment of the Arab-African Union (AAU) by Morocco and Libya in 1984. This happened as a retaliation to the alliance between Algeria, Tunisia and Mauritania, incepted as a result of their signing of the Treaty of Fraternity and Concord in 1983. The unnatural marriage between Morocco and Libya caused a lot of ink to flow. However, the approach of the late King Hassan II was justified by his concern to avoid being isolated as Algeria and Libya had wished a decade earlier. Morocco suffered the ire of the United States and some European countries, such as Spain and France, even though they were on good terms with Gaddafi. Fifty years later, informed observers are of the opinion that the Moroccan monarch played one of the most masterful moves of which he has been known to dislocate, from within, a quadripartite alliance in perspective that would sound the death knell of Morocco's Sahara cause. Diplomacy is driven by decision-making that combines realism, adaptation and flexibility. It depends on the balance of power and the opportunities offered. However, sometimes goodwill is exploited by adversaries. This is the case with the supposedly secret 1981 meeting between Foreign Minister M'hamed Boucetta (1977-1983), his Algerian counterpart, and a representative of the Polisario separatist movement. The meeting was secretly filmed by Algerian intelligence and leaked to exert pressure on Morocco and promote the narrative of direct negotiations and the referendum option, leading to the creation of an artificial entity in the Sahara territory. Diplomacy is also about dirty tricks, insipid staging, and volte-faces. On the question of the Sahara, foreign observers are spoiled for choice. For my part, I stick to what I would call knowingly connivance and ignorance connivance. Critics ignore the fact that Morocco, in the midst of negotiations on its independence, has insisted on the need to complete its territorial integrity. The declarations of independence in 1956 with France and Spain were made in this spirit. Morocco's intention was confirmed by the late King Mohammed V in the speech of Mhamid El-Ghizlane in February 1958. Critics also ignore the fact that Morocco was the first to bring the issue of its territorial integrity before the United Nations General Assembly in 1960, well before Algeria's independence and a few months after Mauritania's. The latter was to enter the scene in 1962 and 1963 to request that the Sahara be part only of Mauritania and Mauritania alone. It did so in collusion with Spain and, later, with Algeria. To my knowledge, few critics have made an objective parallel between the domestic situation and the foreign policy of the parties to the Sahara issue, Morocco, Mauritania, Spain and Algeria. In the chain of established parallelism, there is a link that stands out like a sword of Damocles and that targets, in the first place, Morocco. If, in the public transcript they convey, the commentators-analysts proclaim their support for Morocco's territorial integrity, they do not refrain, in a half-word, from criticizing the way whereby diplomacy has tackled the issue. However, in the hidden script, they unconsciously side with Morocco's opponents' allegations that the Sahara issue is a matter of the regime and not of the people. This narrative was adopted between 1970 and 1982; which relatively weakened Morocco until 1989. What about the sacred alliance between Spain, Algeria, and Mauritania from 1963 to 1975? And why not have a positive view of the behavior of Moroccan diplomacy which has made it possible to extract Mauritania from the influence of Madrid and Algiers? And why not consider that the Sahara issue was, in reality, a positive factor that put in place the conditions for democratic opening and the commitment to alternation of power? The answers would be as contradictory as they are far from integrating each question into its real context. Among the detractors of Moroccan diplomacy from 1960 to 2025, there are those whose mindset is full of ideological prejudices and who have been associated, at varying levels, with the Moroccan decision-making system. 'Hell is the others,' says Jean-Paul Sartre in Huis clos (1944-1947). Hell is also this dichotomous perception, bordering on schizophrenia, which classifies international conflicts according to the mood and interests of the time being. However, international conflicts are above all a stock in trade. For seventy years, the Palestinian issue has been used in this sense, supplanting all other conflicts relating to borders, social choice and ideological differences within the Arab periphery. In reality, the Arab governments and regimes have been using the Palestinian case as a pretext to neutralize each other and pretend to be right all along the line Existential Vacuum For the past five years, some misguided minds have been trying to draw a parallel between the Palestinian question and the Moroccan Sahara. Among Morocco's opponents, Algeria is the gold medal in this type of narrative. There is a desire on the part of Algerian decision-makers to have hegemonic ascendancy over the Maghreb and the Sahel-Saharan region. In Morocco, certain movements, fortunately very much in the minority, prefer transnational alliances and relegate national preferences in terms of geopolitical interpretation to second place. The first category, Algeria topping the list, belatedly realized that it had only been a guinea pig in the global geopolitical equation. It had to invent another narrative and stay in the race. For the second category, the choice between Ibn Rochd, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, Marx, Trotsky, Franz Fanon or Spinoza placed the actors concerned in a position of hallucinatory self-neutralization. They have been shaken so much that they expressed their position in terms of an existential vacancy. That is to say, these movements, all trends included, are eyeing a vacant chair (an undeniable legitimation), but are skeptical about the procedure to follow to access and take over it. There is a kind of clash between the desired legitimacy and the existential brakes. There is a third category that mixes ingredients from the first and second categories. It is composed of those who have only a shallow knowledge of the political and diplomatic history of Morocco. They have no basic clue about their country's monarchical foundation that, despite certain periods of instability, has made it possible to save it. Sept dynasties : les Idrissides (789-978), les Almoravides (1060-1147), les Almohades (1145-1248), les Mérinides (1244-1465), les Wattassides (1472-1554), les Saadiens (1554-1659) et les Alaouites (1666-présent) n'auraient pas survécu s'il n'y avait pas eu une lecture judicieuse des circonstances particulières à chaque époque. Seven dynasties: the Idrisids (789-978), the Almoravids (1060-1147), the Almohads (1145-1248), the Merinids (1244-1465), the Wattassids (1472-1554), the Saadians (1554-1659) and the Alawites (1666-present) would not have survived if there had not been a judicious reading of the particular circumstances and the geopolitics of each era. The issue of the Moroccan Sahara, like those of all matters related to the authentic borders of the country, has been managed since 1956 with the same spirit of foresight and tact that takes into account the opportunities offered. Always the context to take into consideration if one doesn't want to fall into the easy way and the mixing of the wind. The context is also how events between 1981 and 1982 were handled. Morocco proposed the organization of a referendum on self-determination at the summit of the Organization of African Unity in Nairobi in 1981. Taken by surprise, Algeria nevertheless succeeded in getting the pseudo-Sadr admitted in 1982. The policy of creating a divided North-Africa was revived with the creation of the Algeria-Tunisia and Mauritania axis in 1983 and the Morocco and Libya axis in 1984. Morocco left the OAU in 1984 and only returned under its new name, the African Union, in 2017. Analysts in the Arab periphery are taking admiring and critical positions on Russian President Vladimir Putin's discourse on Russia's viability and resistance to the policies implemented by the West to weaken his country. They do not take a step back to understand the context in which Mikhail Gorbachev reluctantly accepted the erosion of the USSR. These analysts understand even less Putin's Munich speech at the 2007 European Security Conference. They remain silent in observing the way in which Russia intervened in Syria in 2012 and withdrew in 2025 by sacrificing the Assad regime. Well, it is clear that the regional conflict over the Sahara is on the way to its resolution, with all due respect to detractors inside and outside. The only appropriate framework is the autonomy plan Morocco proposed in 2007. The main party to the conflict is Algeria. It must sit down at the negotiating table and assert its demands. Algeria will have to do so by agreeing to put everything on the table, starting with a clear understanding of the provisions of the border agreement signed in 1972, acknowledging its responsibility in the 1963 Sand War, and repairing the harm caused to thousands of Moroccans expelled from Algeria in 1975. All this should be part of a clear vision designed to protect the Maghreb from hegemonic greed from the Middle East and the Middle East. That wouldn't be too much to ask. A final warning: time is running out. If some Algerian decision-makers – and the few foreign supporters they have left – playing it smarty, had in mind to imply that they would (theoretically) agree to negotiate on the basis of the autonomy proposal and to drown it (in fact) in endless demands, they would be mistaken. Because Morocco continues to build the country by consolidating local democracy. This requires the implementation of advanced regionalization, which has started on a speedy paces lately. The southern provinces are included in the process. Knowingly connivance and ignorant connivance Mistakes of Moroccan diplomacy, some like to shout it loud? What a conclusion drawn by the horses! The mistakes, on the contrary, are to believe: One, that Moroccan diplomats, especially those in charge of the Sahara issue, are broken arms and that the paradigms built far from the ground would reflect reality. Two, Moroccan diplomats enjoy their lives doing nothing to help their country. They would be dressed to the nines. It is almost like accusing them of lacking patriotism in comparison with the other servants of the Moroccan state. Third, that the Sahara issue would be a question of the regime and that transnational alliances would take precedence over national solidarity. Fourth, that the ongoing process for the resolution of the conflict is smoke and mirrors and that the United States and other international powers are playing with the naivety of Moroccan decision-makers. Fifth, not seizing the opportunities offered would be fatal for the unity and stability of Morocco. Six: When opportunities arise, you have to go for it. One must not make the mistakes certain Arab regimes made on the Palestinian question in the aftermath of the Camp David Accords in 1978. Nor pitying themselves on the democratic transitions setback during the years 1990-2000. Mistakes Moroccan diplomacy might have recorded? What a categorical and unjust judgment! The Moroccan diplomats in charge of the territorial integrity portfolio would have liked to see today's detractors sitting in their places at times when everyone was bequeathed against Morocco. One: in 1961, when Spain claimed that the Moroccan sultans had given up the sovereignty of their country by concluding treaties with foreign powers, including Spain (1767 and 1912) and France (1912) at the bilateral and multilateral levels (1906). Two: also in 1961, when Spain claimed that Morocco had not raised reservations on the question of the colonized territories on the occasion of the joint communiqué recognising its independence in 1956. Three: in 1963, when all the Arab and African countries took the side of Algeria on the occasion of the War of the Sands for which Morocco was not responsible. Four: 1966, when Algeria declared itself a party to the Sahara conflict and made common cause with Spain and Mauritania to torpedo the association between the Sahara issue and the handover of the city of Sidi Ifni. Five: in 1974, when Spain was on the verge of winning its bet to organize a formal referendum for the creation of a phantom entity. And later, to keep its control over the territory that it would indirectly bequeath to Algeria eager to have access to the Atlantic. This was in accordance with the arrangements sealed in 1966, the date Spain held a mini-referendum that few observers are aware of. Six: still in 1974, when Morocco almost saw its request to bring the Sahara issue before the International Court of Justice rejected by the United Nations General Assembly. If it had not been for the good reaction of the Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs to the proposal of his Mauritanian counterpart on sharing the territory to gain time, Spain would have definitively buried Morocco's hopes. Seven: 1979, when Mauritania withdrew from Terris algharbiya (Oued Eddahab) by signing, under pressure from Algeria, an agreement with the Polisario. Morocco's military action had to be supported by a large-scale diplomatic campaign. Eight: 1980-1988, when Morocco tried by all means to bring Algeria back to a better disposition and to convince its mentors of its good faith. This period paved the way for the establishment of the Arab Maghreb Union in 1989. Moroccan diplomats were dispatched to the four corners of the planet to explain Morocco's commitment and firmness with regard to its southern provinces. Naivety? Let's talk about it. It is this presumed naivety (let's say good faith) that allowed the late King Mohammed V to neutralize detractors inside and outside the country; those who were in cahoots with foreign countries for political, ideological and strategic purposes. A thoughtful management of the issue of territorial integrity with France and Spain at a time when the latter's objective was regime change. It is the same naivety-good faith that allowed the late King Hassan II to control the internal political chessboard and to negotiate stability with foreign powers without losing out. At the same time, he knew how to tame the fury of Houari Boumediene who was unaware that he had been used by France for projects that the former power had not been able to complete before the independence of the African countries. The same naivety-good faith helped the late King Hassan II to soak the other Maghreb leaders in their own elixir of bad faith: failure of the axis policy, creation of the UMA, non-interference in the Algerian civil war and acceleration of the intra-national democratic process to make detractors doubt inside and outside. It is the same approach that King Mohammed VI adopts: an outstretched hand and a firmness that is unfailing. Political and diplomatic openness materialized by bold concrete actions aimed at the intranational, Maghreb, Arab, and African political chessboards. This coherent approach was reflected in visits to Algeria, Tunisia, and some thirty sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries Among the most salient visits are those that helped to bring some countries out of the isolation imposed by their neighbours, intra-national insecurity, and the economic and security embargo. This was the case in Tunisia in 2014, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that paralyzed the country and dealt a heavy blow to the tourism sector, which is one of the most important sources of the Tunisian economy. This was also the case for Qatar in 2017, the day after the embargo was imposed on the country by three members of the Gulf Cooperation Council in addition to Egypt. Unless they are acting in bad faith, commentators have nothing to complain about. Cynicism has no place in politics, and even less so in diplomacy. Nass El Ghiwane, whose music fascinated the American director, Martin Scorsese, to the point that he used their song Ya Sah (My Buddy) in his movie 'The Last Temptation of Christ' released in 1988, have a favorite song whose first line says: اللي ڣَالْ لَعْصيدَة بَارْدَة يِديرْ يِدُّو فِيها. It can be poetically translated as 'Whoever claims that the broth is not hot, let him put his hand to it'. Another saying dear to Nass El Ghiwane calls for reason and determination instead of sacrificing to lamentations and denigrations without appropriate hindsight. The saying goes: والله ما قَفِّلْنَا لَفَوِّرْنَا which can be roughly translated as 'Unless you close the lid of the couscous maker, there is no couscous in the finesse of the gastronomic art.' And then the sayings and proverbs of Ibn al-Muqaffa and La Fontaine risk seeing the morality they imply applied to a certain sprinkler who is about to be watered. Moreover, like all rivers, the river of diplomacy is never quiet. At a time when the Sahara issue is nearing its epilogue, it should be recalled that the argument that Algeria had put forward in 1966, distinguishing between the Rguibat of the Sahel (Mauritania) and the Rguibat of the East (Tindouf), is likely to cost it dearly. Indeed, already in 1959, when Algeria was still a French department, a significant fraction within the French army proposed a plan for the establishment of ' a Sahrawi state ' in Tindouf, the main component of which would be the Rguibat of the East. A Moroccan saying fits in this respect. It says : اللِّي دَارْهَا بِيِدِّيهْ يِفُكْها بِسِنِّيه. 'Whoever causes a disaster must take responsibility for it.' History is not amnesiac. Archives may well be affected by humidity, but they cannot hide the truth indefinitely. Let's say conclude that some Algerian decision-makers who are running the business can run, but they can't hide. Moreover, time is running out among those who have their say to end the charade and do nothing. Tags: Africa diplomacyMoroccan Diplomacy
