Sahrawi pluralism: what explains the differences between the MSP and the Polisario
- The Sahrawi Movement for Peace (MSP) is not a “front,” but a legitimate Sahrawi initiative.
- Labeling all dissidents as “traitors” reflects precisely the behavior of a closed organization.
- The meeting between international officials and the MSP is not a “whitewashing” but a recognition of an obvious reality:
- Presenting the MSP as a tool “to recycle the occupation” is a distorted interpretation.
- The idea that any negotiated solution constitutes “treason” reflects an extremist and dogmatic view.
- History will not overlook the serious abuses committed by the Polisario either.
- Conclusion
They rely on baseless insinuations, loose associations, and an obvious intention to limit Sahrawi pluralism. It is necessary to offer some essential clarifications.
The Sahrawi Movement for Peace (MSP) is not a “front,” but a legitimate Sahrawi initiative.
The MSP was born out of the will of thousands of Sahrawis, mostly former Polisario members, notables, diplomats, intellectuals, and, in many cases, people who have been victims of serious human rights violations in the Tindouf camps.
They are not “agents” or “media arms,” but Sahrawis who know from within the authoritarian tendencies of the Polisario and have chosen a peaceful and realistic path.
Labeling all dissidents as “traitors” reflects precisely the behavior of a closed organization.
It is striking—not to say significant—that the Polisario, after decades of an authoritarian, tribal, and repressive system in which hundreds of Sahrawis were tortured, imprisoned, or disappeared, now claims the power to grant certificates of legitimacy or loyalty.
The MSP exists because thousands of Sahrawis reject this single, rigid, and coercive model, which is closer to an authoritarian regime than a liberation movement.
The meeting between international officials and the MSP is not a “whitewashing” but a recognition of an obvious reality:
The Polisario is no longer the only Sahrawi voice. The international community notes that a significant portion of Sahrawis refuse to continue down the same dead-end path, with the same suffering and under the same tutelage of a leadership that has remained unchanged for half a century. International relations recognize pluralism, not imposed unanimity.
Presenting the MSP as a tool “to recycle the occupation” is a distorted interpretation.
The MSP proposes a political approach based on:
- peace,
- dialogue,
- mutual recognition,
- and a realistic, negotiated, and peaceful solution.
These are precisely the principles supported by any responsible international community.
Opposing dialogue and peace is condemning the Sahrawi people to an indefinite conflict, which only benefits the Polisario leadership, never the Sahrawis themselves.
The idea that any negotiated solution constitutes “treason” reflects an extremist and dogmatic view.
No political cause can prosper if it rejects dialogue, modernization, and diversity of voices.
Reducing the Sahrawi cause to a single party, a single interpretation, and a single version of the truth means distorting history and denying the Sahrawis' natural right to political diversity.
History will not overlook the serious abuses committed by the Polisario either.
Mass graves, torture, internal purges, the elimination of cadres, violence against women and opponents: this is the background that some today try to hide behind accusatory and confrontational rhetoric.
The MSP, on the contrary, was born as a movement committed to reconciliation, peace, and dignity, not exclusion or revenge.
Conclusion
The text to which we are responding does not seek to clarify the truth, but rather to discredit any Sahrawi who dares to think differently.
However, the Sahrawis are not the property of any organization.
They have the right—and even the responsibility—to explore political alternatives after fifty years of hardship, suffering, and division.
The MSP represents that alternative:
a pluralistic, peaceful, modern, and dignified voice, backed by thousands of Sahrawis who believe that the future is built with peace, not intimidation.