Washington advances, Algeria receives: when diplomacy becomes implementation

Behind the soft statement issued by the US Embassy, saturated with familiar terms such as “peace,” “prosperity,” and “partnership,” a harsher truth emerges: Washington is no longer in the listening seat, but in the execution seat.

The regional tour that takes the US delegation from Tunisia to Tripoli and then to Algeria makes the logic clear, combining economy, energy, and security in a single move, with the central objective of consolidating stability in areas strategic to US interests. Tunisia for investment, Libya for oil, and Algeria as a political blockade. Nothing is left to chance.

In this construct, Algeria occupies a special place, not because it is an ordinary partner, but because it is an insurmountable factor in the regional equation: coastal security, the balance of power in Arab Morocco, and, above all, the profile of the Western Desert. Here comes the reality of the stress associated with the visits. Although Washington confirms its desire for dialogue, it makes no secret of the fact that the framework, from its point of view, has been predetermined.

This visit, which coincides with the presence of a senior national official in Algeria, is not a transitory matter, but indicates an attempt to coordinate the US initiative and give it multilateral cover. In other words, the UN is being called upon not to arbitrate, but to follow the lead of a prediction elsewhere. This is where pluralism becomes a metaphor; there is no real room for negotiation.

A public reminder of the US position on the western desert taking the form of diplomatic governance.

The recognition of Moroccan sovereignty and the exclusive promotion of the advocate of autonomous government are no longer offered as one option among others, but as the only possible horizon. Therefore, discussions no longer deal with the essence of the issue, but with how to push the parties to adapt to this “reality.”

Herein lies the essence of the form. Considering the file as “closed” may be an understatement of the depth of the political, historical, and symbolic conflict. And it is a dispute that cannot be formally resolved, even if described as “real,” without bearing its regional consequences. Imposing a framework does not mean producing consensus, and accelerating the diplomatic pace does not guarantee either lasting stability or political acceptance.

And for him, this visit to Algeria is not so much an opening as a real moment. The United States is testing the region's ability to adapt to a previous decision. On the contrary, alternative voices from the desert, such as the Desert Movement for Peace (MSP), stand out for their peaceful and pragmatic approach, in contrast to the rigid frameworks that have caused the conflict.

Algeria must choose today: do you accept the required equations or do you seek influence again on a path that can turn diplomacy, in the name of pragmatism, into just a process of implementation?