Debunking the Myths: A Response to Carnegie’s Misrepresentation of the Western Sahara Conflict

1. Morocco’s Historical Claim: Not a Matter of Convenience  
2. The Polisario Front: A Manufactured "Liberation" Movement  
3. Economic Development and the Future of the Sahara  
4. Why U.S. Recognition Matters  
5. The Path Forward: Autonomy, Not Separatism  
6. Conclusion: Time to Acknowledge Reality  

Unfortunately, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently published an article—Trump’s Lesser-Known Deal of the Century? Resolving the Western Sahara Conflict—that fails on all three fronts.  

Written by Sarah Yerkes and Natalie Triche, the piece is riddled with misrepresentations, selective omissions, and an uncritical adoption of Algeria’s narrative, ultimately misguiding readers about one of Africa’s most minutely fabricated and maintained disputes.  

It is necessary, therefore, to dissect the flawed assumptions and correct the distortions that shape their argument. Western Sahara is not a “disputed” territory in the sense that the article suggests; it is an integral part of Morocco, reclaimed after the end of Spanish colonial rule, and recognized by an increasing number of countries as such. The so-called Polisario Front, an armed separatist movement headquartered in Algeria, has never represented the true aspirations of the Sahrawi populations, and its claims to sovereignty rest on a foundation of outdated Cold War politics, geopolitical opportunism, and the deliberate manipulation of history.  

Morocco’s Historical Claim: Not a Matter of Convenience  

One of the core misconceptions in the Carnegie article is the idea that Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara is a contemporary geopolitical maneuver rather than a deeply rooted historical reality. In truth, Western Sahara was never terra nullius (land belonging to no one), nor was it a separate entity from Morocco before Spanish colonization. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling of 1975, which the authors misleadingly cite, affirmed that the Sahara’s tribes had historical allegiance to Morocco’s rulers—a fact that should have settled the question.  

However, the article fails to acknowledge that this ruling was not an endorsement of separatism but rather an affirmation of Morocco’s historical ties with the region. The Green March of 1975, where 350,000 unarmed Moroccan civilians peacefully reclaimed the territory, was not a military occupation, as the article suggests. Instead, it was a monumental act of decolonization, ending Spain’s occupation without bloodshed. The authors’ depiction of this march as “symbolic” reveals either a profound misunderstanding of its purpose or a deliberate attempt to distort history.  

The Polisario Front: A Manufactured "Liberation" Movement  

Much of the Carnegie article relies on a false equivalence between Morocco and the Polisario Front, portraying the latter as an organic Sahrawi-led independence movement. In reality, the Polisario is not a legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, nor has it ever been democratically elected. It is, rather, an armed faction created, financed, and controlled by Algeria as part of its broader geopolitical rivalry with Morocco. The authors conveniently ignore the voices of the majority of Sahrawis living in Morocco, who have embraced Moroccan sovereignty and are active participants in governance, economic development, and social progress. The claim that the Sahrawis are somehow disenfranchised or voiceless contradicts the reality of elected regional councils, investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, and a far higher quality of life than that of the Sahrawis trapped in the Polisario-run Tindouf refugee camps in Algeria.  

What the article also fails to mention is Algeria’s role in deliberately preventing the identification and repatriation of these refugees, fearing that an accurate census would reveal that many of them are not even Sahrawi but rather economic migrants from the Sahel. Algeria’s refusal to allow the United Nations to conduct a population census in Tindouf for over 40 years should raise alarms, yet the authors conveniently overlook this major violation of international law. 

Economic Development and the Future of the Sahara  

The Carnegie article implies that Morocco’s investment in Western Sahara is exploitative, focusing on phosphate resources and potential oil reserves. This is an egregious misrepresentation. Morocco’s development of the Sahara is not driven by resource extraction but by a broader national strategy for regional economic integration. 

 Over the past two decades, Morocco has invested billions of dollars into infrastructure projects in the region, including:  

• The Tiznit-Dakhla highway, a major road linking the Sahara with the rest of Morocco.  
• The Dakhla Atlantic Port, a $1 billion project to transform the region into a commercial hub connecting Africa to Europe and the Americas. 
• Massive investments in renewable energy, including solar and wind farms that make Western Sahara a key player in Africa’s energy future.  

If Morocco’s only interest were economic exploitation, it would not be spending significantly more money on infrastructure, education, and social services than it gains from the region’s natural resources. The phosphate deposits in Western Sahara account for only 2% of Morocco’s total phosphate reserves, all of which is reinvested in local social development projects, making the argument that Morocco is holding on to the Sahara for economic gain laughable at best.  

Why U.S. Recognition Matters  

The Carnegie article takes issue with the U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara under the Trump administration, suggesting that it was a rash and reckless decision. This ignores the fact that Morocco’s sovereignty is increasingly recognized by the international community, including 20+ countries that have opened consulates in Laayoune and Dakhla, signaling de facto recognition of Moroccan rule. Since the U.S. decision, key European nations—Spain, Germany, and France—have also shifted their stance toward supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan, further validating the move. The U.S. decision was not a reckless geopolitical gamble; rather, it was a long-overdue correction to a policy that had ignored the reality on the ground for too long.  

The Path Forward: Autonomy, Not Separatism  

The only viable solution to the Western Sahara issue is Morocco’s autonomy plan, which offers the Sahrawis self-governance under Moroccan sovereignty. This is not an abstract promise; it is a realistic framework supported by the United Nations, the African Union, and major international powers. Yet, the Carnegie authors dismiss this plan without offering a credible alternative. They fail to acknowledge that an independent Sahrawi state is neither viable nor desirable, as it would be a fragile, ungovernable entity, completely dependent on foreign aid and answering to Algeria’s military regime. If the authors were truly interested in a peaceful resolution, they would advocate for the return of Sahrawis trapped in the Polisario-run Tindouf camps, where they have been kept in limbo for decades, deprived of basic rights. Instead, the article uncritically parrots Polisario propaganda, ignoring the humanitarian cost of prolonging this conflict.  

Conclusion: Time to Acknowledge Reality  

The Western Sahara issue has persisted for decades, not because Morocco’s position is illegitimate, but because Algeria continues to weaponize separatism for its own regional ambitions. The Carnegie Endowment’s article does a disservice to factual analysis by presenting an incomplete and biased account of the conflict. It is time for the world to recognize the reality: Western Sahara is an integral part of Morocco, and the only solution that guarantees stability, development, and dignity for the Sahrawi people is autonomy within Moroccan sovereignty. The era of manufactured separatism is over. Morocco is building the future, while the Polisario and Algeria remain trapped in the past.