Speech of realism

There is no doubt that discourse is the most obvious manifestation of diplomatic practice, and in this sense international organisations are part of these political-administrative apparatuses accustomed to producing a multitude of texts. The reference most directly associated with this notion of international organisation refers to the institutional reality of the UN system, with its organs and numerous satellite agencies. These texts, belonging to the category of institutional discourses, form a quasi-ideal type of political discourse that is strongly constrained by a well-known production ritual, and which should be analysed in detail as a representation of meaning in international relations.
 
In the same context, and in order to better understand how the United Nations Security Council has been dealing with the Moroccan Sahara issue since the beginning of this artificial conflict, it is necessary to subject the discourse of the highest and most important decision-making body of the United Nations to a lexical semantic analysis, which allows us to identify the points of rupture that occur in the succession of the numerous resolutions devoted to this geopolitical conflict.
 
Perhaps the constituent elements of the Security Council's discourse on the Sahara conflict have not been sufficiently analysed in their entirety; it is therefore worth decrypting them from the perspective of discursive strategies and their importance in the emergence and change of normative practices in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. 

In the long series of UN Security Council resolutions on the question of the Moroccan Sahara, Resolution 2654 of 27 October 2022 is undoubtedly a new turning point. While the Security Council has been content for years to preserve the status quo by periodically renewing MINURSO's mandate, in its latest resolution it clearly defends the round-table process as the only realistic solution to the conflict, which means that Algeria, which had announced its refusal to participate, is strongly urged to join in the logic of this political solution.
 
In this sense, "the political process" is a key expression in the text of the resolution proposed by the United States to the members of the Security Council. Indeed, while welcoming the appointment of Staffan de Mistura, the new personal envoy of Antonio Guterres, the resolution called for "a constructive resumption of the political process", building on the progress made by his predecessor.
 
The message is thus clear: while Algeria continues to play the card of international law and insists on the thesis of self-determination, the UN Security Council stresses the need for a "realistic, pragmatic, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution", in this context it is worth noting that like previous Security Council resolutions, there is no mention of a referendum on self-determination. This option was definitively buried by the international community, which eventually realised the inapplicability of this technical mechanism. Today, it is the spirit of realism, compromise and pragmatism that prevails in the language of the UN Security Council, which favours the discursive construction of the "political solution" confirmed by the new resolution 2654.

It is quite evident that the reference to realism in this resolution, as in previous ones, is rather a kind of implicit perception of the initiative of the Kingdom of Morocco to resolve the Sahara dispute, meaning that the only possible and realistic solution is undoubtedly true autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, and that the creation of a new state in the area is not at all a realistic option, either to resolve the conflict or to maintain peace. 
 
But what exactly is diplomatic discourse saying in the name of realism, what are the communicative uses of this word, and what in particular are its uses in the rhetoric of the Security Council?
 
Very briefly, we can say that in the concept of political realism (realpolitik), the realist politician is perceived as an actor who deals with social reality as it is and not as he would like it to be, who works with his feet on the ground, who knows that man does not have wings, who moves in what is real and not in the imaginary.
 
From this point of view, the essential characteristic of a realist initiative in international politics is that it always takes into account reality, the possible, the objective and the concrete, and consequently the proposal of a political solution to this artificial conflict that can be described as realistic, is one that expresses the vision and will of a political actor who has his feet firmly on the ground, who is motivated by an obligation to achieve immediate results in terms of peace and stability, who deploys all his capacity to see beyond deceptive appearances and cheap ideologies, who strives to bring to light the true motivations of the various actors.
 
Realism in the rhetoric of the Security Council is thus the solution to a problem that was only raised and complicated by a lack of sufficient analysis, but also by the effect of illusions that deceive and conceal reality, as is the case of those who feed on fantasies and insist on continuing to dream of a return to largely illusory separatist theses. 

When the Security Council describes the Moroccan initiative as realistic, it is because in reality the autonomy negotiated has allowed the resolution, in full compliance with international law, of several conflict situations in the world, with respect for the territorial integrity of States and respect for the specific characteristics of the regions concerned.
 
Reaffirming the serious and credible nature of the Moroccan initiative, the Security Council recognises the perfect compatibility of this initiative with reality, since international practice on autonomy is clearly supported by a large body of international law which confirms its legal legality and its political and realistic desirability as a compromise solution, between the options of integration and independence. Moreover, the autonomy solution is the most modern and democratic form of self-determination, allowing for a win-win compromise agreement, preserving the unity and sovereignty of states, constitutionalising and institutionalising the rights of the populations concerned to manage themselves democratically, with full respect for their human rights and their cultural, linguistic and linguistic specificities.
 
To conclude, we can deduce that the rhetoric of realism in the Security Council's discourse on the question of the Moroccan Sahara is structured around representations of meaning that illustrate the "political solution" sought, and which find their expression in demands for pragmatism, seriousness, constructive and consensual spirit. These demands are set out in the form of recommendations, but over time they have become decisive and irreversible elements in the search for a realistic political solution to this artificial conflict over the Moroccan Sahara.