Algeria: the paper hero who failed in the Security Council

From the outset, Algeria tried to use the Palestinian cause as a diplomatic card to create the impression that it is a country that defends the rights of peoples, benefiting from the coverage of human rights organisations and the international press on various conflicts.

Although this action temporarily garnered some media sympathy, the trap was obvious to those who know the rules of the game: Palestine was never a real priority, but rather a means of whitewashing the image of a regime incapable of generating authentic influence.

At the same time, Algeria used this card at the table of the Moroccan Sahara conflict, attempting to exploit any passing advantage to tip the balance of votes in its favour. All the meetings, communications, correspondence and mobilisation of international influence failed to impose the Algerian vision, which was clearly reflected in its absence from the votes for two consecutive years and its resounding failure this year in the face of the decision that confirmed that autonomy is the only framework for resolving the conflict, with clear backing from the United States.

The greatest paradox appeared a few days after the end of Algeria's term on the Council, when it voted in favour of a US draft resolution rejected by the very Palestinian factions that Algeria had proclaimed its support for, including Hamas. This position revealed the true face of Algerian diplomacy: the Palestinian card, used as a tool for pressure and image enhancement, turned to ashes, and it became clear that Algeria was trying to jump on the US bandwagon at the last minute to gain any minimal benefit on the Sahara issue.

Algeria's performance once again reflects key features of its political approach: improvisation, jumping from one position to another, and impulsive reactions rather than long-term strategies. International politics is not built on emotional deception or momentary displays; it requires clear vision, long-term planning and sustained credibility. Algeria, on the contrary, acts according to circumstantial interests, fires up the media, makes threats, cuts off relations and rearranges priorities according to the mood and opportunities of the moment.

These events led many international actors, including the European Union, to reconsider their positions, opting to openly support Morocco on the Sahara issue and recognising its sovereignty over its southern provinces, after it became clear that Algeria is an unreliable partner, incapable of maintaining stable positions and dependent on temporary displays and immediate reactions rather than genuine strategies.

The biggest lesson from this experience is clear: politics is not built on spectacle or temporary pressure tactics, but on the art of reading reality, establishing solid principles and working for the long term. Countries that change their stance as the wind changes and that place circumstantial interests above principles quickly reveal the falseness of their positions, and the world perceives them as a diplomatic illusion; while states that develop sustainable strategies protect their interests and command respect, even in the most difficult conditions.

Thus, Morocco remains a model state that builds its power on a clear vision, while Algeria remains a paper hero, projecting its image to the world without any real weight. 

Abdelhay Korret, Moroccan journalist and writer