The Sahara and the European Parliament Intergroups: at the service of Europe or of other interests?

1. The opacity of intergroups: a structural problem 
2. The shadow of foreign interests
3. The Polisario Front and its allies: a network of questionable influence 
4. The European Parliament turns its back on the Polisario Front: towards greater transparency and responsibility 

However, in practice, these structures have proven to be opaque tools that allow lobbies, activists and pressure groups to influence the European political agenda, often outside of public scrutiny. A paradigmatic case of this phenomenon is the recently dissolved Western Sahara Intergroup, which has served as a platform to legitimise and promote the interests of the Polisario Front, an organisation with a questionable track record and whose support within the European Union deserves critical review.

But what is most worrying is not only the lack of transparency, but the possibility that this intergroup is inadvertently promoting the interests of third countries, rather than those of the European Union and its citizens. 

The opacity of intergroups: a structural problem 

Intergroups lack a clear regulatory framework. Although they are indirectly financed with public funds, they are not subject to the same transparency rules as other European institutions. This opens the door for external actors, such as lobbies and pressure groups, to use these spaces to promote particular agendas without being held accountable. The lack of supervision and control makes intergroups a breeding ground for undue influence, where geopolitical and economic interests can be camouflaged under the guise of political dialogue. 

In this context, the Western Sahara Intergroup emerged at the time as a worrying example of the above. This intergroup, mainly composed of members of far-left European parties and various independence movements, has been used to amplify the narrative of the Polisario Front in the EU, an organisation that seeks the independence of Western Sahara, but which has been accused of human rights violations and of maintaining close links with authoritarian regimes such as Cuba, Venezuela or Algeria itself. 

The shadow of foreign interests

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Western Sahara Intergroup was its apparent alignment with the interests of Algeria, a country that has historically supported the Polisario Front for geopolitical and strategic reasons. The activity of this intergroup has raised concerns due to the possible violation of the internal rules of the European Parliament, as its actions seem to be exclusively oriented towards specific interests in the region, rather than reflecting a balanced and objective stance. This raises an uncomfortable question: was the Western Sahara Intergroup serving European citizens or acting as an instrument of foreign influence?

The influence, not only of the Polisario, but of Algeria itself on this intergroup is difficult to ignore. From organising events to promoting biased narratives, their actions seemed to be harmonised with Algeria's geopolitical objectives in the region. This not only undermines the credibility of the European Parliament, but also calls into question the independence and integrity of its institutions. If intergroups can be used as vehicles to promote the interests of third countries, what guarantees do we have that the decisions made in Brussels reflect the values and interests of European citizens? 

The Polisario Front and its allies: a network of questionable influence 

The Polisario Front, together with Algeria, has managed to weave a network of support around the European Union that includes politicians, journalists, activists and non-governmental organisations. This network has been instrumental in the creation and maintenance of the Western Sahara Intergroup, which acts as a mouthpiece for their demands. However, it is necessary to ask: what interests are behind this support? Why have certain European actors decided to align themselves with an organisation that has been criticised for its lack of transparency and authoritarian record?

One of the most serious problems is the lack of balance in the representation of the parties involved in the Western Sahara conflict. While the Polisario Front has managed to infiltrate European political circles, the voices defending the autonomy of the territory under Moroccan sovereignty have been systematically marginalised and vilified under the classic false accusations of working for Morocco. This imbalance not only distorts the perception of the conflict, but also undermines efforts to find a peaceful and lasting solution. 

Furthermore, it is worrying how some MEPs embrace the Polisario cause without critically analysing its actions and methods, reinforcing its narrative and even receiving invitations to travel to the refugee camps. A clear example was the last Polisario congress in Tindouf, financed by the Algerian government, where it was possible to verify the instrumentalisation of these groups and how they try to influence the decisions of the European Parliament.

Similarly, the Western Sahara Intergroup has organised events and conferences in which they present Polisario with special emphasis as the only legitimate representative of the Saharawi people, ignoring the complexities of the conflict, as well as other possible alternatives such as the MSP or other Saharawi voices that have dissented from their postulates. And, of course, they also ignore the alternatives proposed by Morocco, such as the autonomy plan. This unilateral stance is not only unjust and intransigent, but also contributes to perpetuating the conflict instead of resolving it. 

The case of Western Sahara is particularly revealing. The lobbies that support the Polisario Front have used disinformation and manipulation tactics to present Morocco as an oppressor and the Polisario as a victim. This narrative, although simplistic and misleading, has taken hold in certain sectors of the European Parliament, where some MEPs have adopted an uncritical and dogmatic stance. Most seriously, this stance not only benefits the Polisario Front, but also serves the interests of third countries such as Algeria, which seek to weaken Morocco and consolidate their influence in the region through these lobbies that they themselves sponsor.

The European Parliament turns its back on the Polisario Front: towards greater transparency and responsibility 

In a recent turn of events, the European Parliament decided in December last year not to renew this intergroup dedicated to Western Sahara, a structure that since its creation in 1987 had been renewed in all previous legislatures. With this decision, it seems to be reorienting its strategic course towards stability in the Mediterranean. This reorientation reflects the increasingly widespread belief that support for the Polisario not only does not contribute to the resolution of the conflict, but also undermines the European Union's strategic interests in the region. Proof of this is also the fact that in recent years around twenty EU countries have supported the Moroccan autonomy proposal as a solution to the dispute. The recent change in position towards this pro-Polisario Intergroup is an encouraging sign that the European Parliament is beginning to recognise the need for a more balanced and pragmatic approach to the Sahara conflict. 

It is clear that the European Parliament's intergroups are in urgent need of reform. Firstly, it is essential to establish a regulatory framework that guarantees transparency and accountability. The intergroups cannot continue to operate as opaque spaces where lobbies and pressure groups impose their agendas without any kind of control. Secondly, it is necessary to promote a balanced and pluralistic debate in which all parties involved in a conflict have the opportunity to express their point of view. In the case of Western Sahara, this means that the European Parliament must stop being an exclusive mouthpiece for the Polisario Front and start listening to all parties, including Morocco and the Saharawis who support the autonomy plan. Only in this way will it be possible to move towards a just and lasting solution.

In conclusion, the European Parliament's intergroups, far from being spaces for dialogue and collaboration, have become tools of influence and manipulation. The case of the Western Sahara Intergroup is a clear example of how these mechanisms can be used to promote particular agendas at the expense of the general interest. It is to be welcomed that the European Union has taken action on the matter and is ensuring that intergroups fulfil their original purpose: to serve European citizens, not lobbies, pressure groups or foreign interests, as has been the case with this Western Sahara Intergroup, which is fortunately now defunct. The credibility of the European institutions depends on it.