The briefing presented by the Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General to Western Sahara, Staffan De Mistura, before the Security Council last week, raised serious questions about the future of the negotiating track between the Polisario Front and Morocco, in light of what the Sahrawi party sees as bias towards the Moroccan proposal, which threatens the neutrality of the mediation and its ability to bring the viewpoints closer between the two parties.
One of the basic principles for the success of any mediation is that the mediator must remain neutral and stand at the same distance from the parties. However, the latest briefing to De Mistura, according to the Sahrawi reading, showed a tendency to adopt the Moroccan proposal as a basis for negotiation, at the expense of the Sahrawi proposal based on international legitimacy. If this approach takes hold, its impact will not only weaken confidence in the envoy, but will also affect the basis on which international mediation is based, and raise questions about his ability to continue his mission in a manner acceptable to both parties.
The Polisario Front expressed its position in a statement issued on October 12, warning of the repercussions of the envoy’s departure, in its assessment, from the requirements of neutrality. This comes at a delicate stage, coinciding with the approaching end of the term of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres next December. The continuation of the crisis of confidence would dissipate the momentum achieved over the past months, and make the task of any new envoy more difficult, as he would be forced to rebuild confidence before resuming a serious negotiating path.
The problem is not limited to the future of the current envoy, but extends to the upcoming Security Council resolution on Western Sahara. The lack of confidence in the mediator weakens the chances of creating the necessary conditions for the resumption of negotiations, and the continued stalemate may lead to a decline in international interest in the file, leaving room for developments on the ground that will further complicate the situation and threaten security and stability in the region.
In this context, the Security Council’s interest should not be limited to determining the topics of negotiation, but should extend to ensuring the integrity of the mediation and protecting it from external pressures and influences, so that it does not turn into a tool to favor one party’s proposal at the expense of the other. This also applies to the role of the United States, as the pen-holder in the Western Sahara file within the Council, especially in light of the disagreements that accompanied the discussions of the resolution in October 2025 regarding its formulation and the inclusion of phrases that did not receive unanimous agreement among the members.
The positions expressed by Algeria on multiple occasions, whether through President Abdelmadjid Tebboune and Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf, or in the intervention of its Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ammar Benjamea, before the Decolonization Committee, gain special importance in this context. They can be read, along with the position of the Polisario Front, as messages to the Security Council warning against giving priority to one party’s proposal at the expense of the other, and against undermining the momentum achieved during the three ministerial meetings in Madrid and Washington, instead of building on what was achieved during them.
In light of these facts, maintaining the general framework of the previous Security Council resolution may be an option to avoid changes that would further complicate the situation or weaken the chances of resuming negotiations. This may also allow the next Secretary-General to choose a new personal envoy who is acceptable to both parties and can restore trust and launch a more balanced mediation.
The current challenge is not only related to drafting a new resolution, but also to ensuring the political conditions that allow the negotiation process to continue on the basis of neutrality, balance, and respect for international legitimacy. Without a trustworthy mediator, there will be no solid ground for serious negotiations, and the political track may turn into a new episode of stalemate, instead of being a gateway to a just and lasting settlement of the Western Sahara issue.
