The Spanish diplomat was in the microphones of the programme 'De cara al mundo' on Onda Madrid and pointed out that "the Moroccan autonomy plan is in no way at odds with the UN resolutions"

Gustavo de Arístegui: “El Frente Polisario no es el único representante de los saharauis”

photo_camera Gustavo de Arístegui

In the latest edition of "De Cara al Mundo" on Onda Madrid, we had the participation of Gustavo de Arístegui, diplomat and international analyst, who spoke about the new position that Algeria has taken with Spain following the Spanish government's approval of the Moroccan autonomy plan for the Sahara. 

Why is Algeria reacting so aggressively now?

It is worth taking a look at the history of how Spain's change of attitude came about, which is more supposed than real: in private, all Spanish governments said the same thing that has been said in public with the now infamous letter, which was poorly drafted and clumsily made public. All this was done secretly, not confidentially, not discreetly; these things must be done with the necessary discretion, but there were five essential contacts that the Spanish government should have maintained. First, Algeria itself and the Polisario Front; it should have informed them before the public, just as when Brahim Ghali, leader of the Polisario Front, was brought to Spain to be cured of COVID-19, the Moroccan authorities should have been informed, which would have avoided the crisis with Morocco, and would also have mitigated the anger of the Algerians if a long diplomatic process had been initiated, which would not have avoided an angry reaction, but would have been shorter in time. In the same way, they should have contacted the country's opposition, the other party that might eventually govern the country, to explain the deeper reasons that cannot be said in public, as foreign policy is often shaped by geopolitics and is an arcane issue for public opinion, and the shaping of international agreements requires such discretion. The fourth contact should have been with his own parliamentary partners, who are constantly blocking him, and finally, his government partners, who sit at the table of the councils of ministers and who have also been totally opposed to any kind of evolution in Spain's position, also had to be informed. 

Could we have coordinated with the other powers?

If this had been done gradually, we could have made progress in coordinating with countries that have followed the same line, such as the United States and France, and those that were about to do so, such as the Netherlands and Germany, but nothing was done. What could have been a magnificent opportunity, a qualitative leap in Spain's foreign policy without stepping on anyone's toes, neither Algeria nor the Polisario, was not done, and everything that could have been done badly was done worse. On the other hand, such a radical change in public opinion would obviously not have pleased the Algerians or the Polisario, but if things had been done properly, the reaction would have been much more considered and would not have had such serious effects. It should be remembered that during the worst moments of terrorism in Algeria, Spain, with the efforts of the Algerians in the fight against the scourge of jihadist terrorism, helped the Algerians very intensely in the fight against terrorism. Spain trained bomb squad members who dramatically reduced the number of casualties among the Algerian security forces and the Algerian military in their fight against terrorism during those dramatic years in Algeria, which were suffered by the entire population. Therefore, frankly, the government's clumsiness, lack of foresight, lack of left-handedness and lack of diplomacy are at the root of Algeria's very angry reaction. Similarly, let us be clear that we have not made much progress in normalising relations with Morocco, if we are going to have to pay such a high price as the break with Algeria, and we have made so little progress in normalising relations with Morocco, then we did not need these saddlebags for this trip.

Gustavo de Arístegui

Without a doubt, we have to value a decision that is correct, but it has to be explained well. Would you have taken a plane to explain to the Algerian authorities what is happening? In November, the Algerians cut off half of the gas they were supplying us with because they did not renew the contract and they closed the gas pipeline with Morocco, and we did not have such an angry reaction. 

Once again, there are two parts to this, the first is that it is the right decision and we agree on that. Moreover, in geopolitics, the morality and ethics of decisions that are truly important are governed by the defence of interests, that is, the decision is in line with the interests of stability and peace in the region, as seen by the major geopolitical powers of the planet, which is not a minor issue. Nor is it a minor issue that the majority of the members of the G-7 are in this line, the US, France, Italy, the UK and Germany, we are talking about a decision that the major international players share because they understand that we are facing a need to promote peace, security and stability. We are talking about an extraordinarily volatile region, the Sahel has a natural outlet in the Sahara, the Canary Islands are opposite, and the United States and Latin America cannot allow themselves to fall into instability just a few days' sailing away. Finally, an obvious question, analysts who often refer to the Polisario Front as if it were the Sahrawi people, let us understand that the Polisario is not the only representative of the Sahrawi people, not all Sahrawis are pro-Polisario, it is rather a minority, the majority is either purely neutral or pro-Moroccan. Most Saharawis live in Europe or in Morocco, so one has to be careful with the words one uses. 

In reference to if you had taken a plane, what would you have done?

If the second question we were asking, if I had taken a plane, I would have had to talk to everybody and mobilise a lot of people at a high level in the government or in the government parties, obviously one of them would not have done it, the other one would have had to do it. How many times have we been told that the PSOE had an excellent relationship with the governing parties in Algeria and Morocco, so it was time to prove it and not only for the government to move, but we are also a democracy with legislative and executive power, and the one and the other would have done what they had to do. It is clear that the minister was not aware of what was happening in Morocco and neither was he aware of what was happening in Algeria, and it is regrettable because I frankly believe that the measure was appropriate and that there should have been much more active and much more intense diplomacy, not only by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also by the President of the Government himself. 

Gustavo de Arístegui

We have had the opportunity to speak with many Saharawis and they continue to maintain their desire for family reunification, to be reunited with their relatives who are living badly in Tindouf, and with the commitment that Morocco can offer them access to decent housing, health care, etc., and to normalise a situation that, in addition to the geopolitical interests that you have described, has a fundamental human side. 

The explanations, in some of the arguments given, were pine box explanations, simply to say that a conflict that has been stagnating for almost 50 years needs a solution, the people living in Tindouf need a dignified way out, because many of them want to go to Morocco or any other country in the world to start a life different from that of refugees living in Tindouf. Obviously, we do not have all the information because, in my opinion, the explanations that should have been more in-depth have not been given. When one takes a decision of this magnitude, one has previously taken the necessary measures to try to mitigate the foreseeable reaction of the other party. In any case, diplomacy, I would venture to say, is an art in which states try to settle disputes in the most efficient and least costly way for the parties. In diplomacy one cannot aspire to win 10-0, anyone who sits down to a negotiation thinking that the result will be 10-0 or 9-1 is fundamentally mistaken. I repeat that in both politics and diplomacy, consensus is not an objective, but a means. Therefore, if the Spanish government's objective was to take this correct and necessary decision, in line with the world's major powers, it was necessary to adopt it with the consensus at home in political matters and with the necessary agreements with the other parties involved.

The Moroccan autonomy plan is a credible and lasting solution...

The Moroccan autonomy plan for the Sahara is in no way at odds with the UN resolutions, it has been presented to the UN and for years the United Nations has been taking note of the Moroccan autonomy plan and it has been put on the table for discussion by all the parties concerned. An agreement has not yet been reached on it because it has not been discussed in depth and, consequently, what the parties not concerned cannot do is reject an autonomy plan as contrary to the United Nations resolutions when the UN accepts it as a possible negotiation within its framework, and the parties concerned have not reached a complete agreement or disagreement on the plan, therefore, we cannot get ahead of the resolutions, however concerned we may be in this conflict which has lasted almost fifty years. The conflict has an international legal and emotional charge, in Spain the question of the Sahara is a question of domestic policy and that is how it should be, and it is somewhat the case with other international conflicts, especially this one, which never makes the front pages of the major newspapers unless mistakes are made. In any case, I would like to reiterate that I am one of the few who gave the government the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of this crisis, when all of us who know this region of the world know that it was a necessary decision and almost impossible to avoid because there is no other possible decision, it is the only one that can unblock this situation and move forward the lives of those who are living in Tindouf. It is important that all these measures: contacts within the government; contacts with parliamentary partners, which were necessary in the final stages of the change in the government's public position; contacts with the opposition; with the Polisario Front; and, finally, with Algeria; it was obvious that this was not done, and, more importantly, that it was said that it was done when it was not done, something that irritated our Algerian neighbours even more. Algeria is not just any country, it is essential not only for the Maghreb and Africa, it is essential in the energy world, in the world of security, culturally, in the fight against terrorism and human trafficking, and it is a fundamental country in the regional context of the Maghreb and the Middle East. We are talking about a country that makes a fundamental contribution to the security of the Mediterranean; it is not just gas, Algeria is much more. Algeria is a cultural power in the Maghreb world, Algerian music is heard throughout the Arab world and has huge fans even in Morocco. We cannot forget the contribution Algeria has made to peace and security in the Mediterranean and the Maghreb, and that is why we must insist that Algeria is not just about gas. 

Gustavo de Arístegui

Beyond the Sahara... Does Algeria's relationship with Russia and Putin, especially after the invasion of Ukraine, have anything to do with what the Algerian government is doing now?

Every country chooses its allies and it must be understood that sometimes they are chosen well and sometimes they are not. Maduro's statements in Algiers do nothing for the country, nor for the country's image, nor for conflict resolution, nor for Algeria's credibility. Maduro is an international pariah; the fact that the sanctions have been lifted so that he can sell a little oil and thus try to lower the price of crude on the international market is only a question of timing; it does not change the nature of the regime. Nor does it change the nature of Putin's aggression in Ukraine and the risk it poses to world peace - not since 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis have we been so close to nuclear conflict if things escalate. Algeria's foreign policy messages of friendship are therefore extremely worrying for countries such as the United States, NATO members and even the democratic countries of the East. In the opinion of every sensible analyst on the planet, such messages need to be rectified. The more the message is sent that Russia is privileged over the US or China over NATO or Europe, the more worrying the messages will be for the international community.

More in Politics