Victoria G. Corera – Platform “DO NOT FORGET THE WESTERN SAHARA” The international escalation around Iran has profoundly reconfigured the strategic priorities of the United States and the European Union. Energy security, military alliances, control of maritime routes, and regional stability now dominate the diplomatic agenda. In this context of increasing tension, the southern Mediterranean regains geopolitical centrality. But this reconfiguration raises a legitimate question: what might be the consequences of this crisis on processes that are still unfinished under international law, such as that of the Western Sahara?
The Maghreb is inevitably affected by this new situation. Morocco is consolidating its role as a strategic partner for Western powers in terms of security and military cooperation, strengthening its alignment with Atlantic priorities in a context of regional tensions. Algeria, on the other hand, adopts a more cautious stance towards the crisis around Iran. Without joining in the strongest condemnations expressed by some Arab Gulf countries, Algiers emphasizes respect for the sovereignty of states and the need to avoid regional escalation. This position does not reflect an automatic alignment with Tehran, but rather a logic of strategic autonomy and the preservation of diplomatic margins in an unstable environment. Spain, in turn, is trying to maintain a delicate balance between these two regional poles, aware that any change in the balances in the Maghreb has direct repercussions on its own foreign policy.
In times of international tension, major powers tend to prioritize immediate stability over the structural resolution of inherited conflicts. This logic can have indirect effects. When the international system reorganizes around blocks and alliances, ongoing decolonization processes risk being pushed to the background.
The Western Sahara remains on the list of non-self-governing territories of the United Nations. Its legal status has not changed. The right to self-determination remains the framework recognized by international law. However, diplomatic practice does not always evolve at the same pace as legal principles.
Occupation is not only about immediate visibility. What is at stake is the balance between geopolitical considerations and respect for international law. If the crisis around Iran leads to strengthening certain regional alliances without demanding progress in the legal resolution of the Sahrawi conflict, the decolonization process could once again be marginalized.
In a context of increasing polarization, the risk is that the Western Sahara may be perceived not as a pending question of international legality, but as a variable within the regional security architecture. The priority would then become strategic cohesion and the management of regional balances, rather than the completion of a process in line with UN resolutions.
For Spain, this situation has an additional dimension. Beyond the geopolitical context, the debate on the legal responsibility inherited from the colonial period remains present, both internally and in the international framework. Recent judicial decisions regarding nationality and the legislative initiative related to Sahrawis born under Spanish administration illustrate that the historical link continues to have concrete legal effects.
In a scenario marked by war and the reconfiguration of balances, the temptation to relegate decolonization processes may seem understandable from a strategic point of view. However, it remains problematic from the perspective of international law.
The issue is not just about the visibility of the Western Sahara on the diplomatic agenda. It is about the ability of states and international institutions to maintain coherence between their legal commitments and their strategic priorities. In times of global tension, respect for international law ceases to be an abstract principle: it becomes a true test of credibility.
