In addition to the first session of the joint Morocco-Kenya cooperation commission last Thursday, Nairobi’s explicit support for the autonomy initiative under Moroccan sovereignty has shed light on profound geopolitical changes. These upheavals, reshaping power dynamics within the African Union, were further illustrated by the limited presence of a few state representatives – led by South Africa and Mozambique – at the so-called “Republic anniversary” celebrations in the Tindouf camps.
Building on this momentum, the Kingdom of Morocco is strengthening its presence on the African stage and increasing diplomatic breakthroughs. This shift, affecting countries formerly aligned with the hostile Algiers-Pretoria axis, relegates the separatist thesis to a state of unprecedented isolation. Now, many African nations are reevaluating their foreign policy, preferring a logic of mutual interests and freeing themselves from ideological burdens that previously hindered their partnerships with a major player like Morocco.
Analyzing this new development, strategic affairs researcher Hicham Moataded sees it as a clear indicator of a deep restructuring of continental diplomacy. According to him, “the Sahara conflict is no longer viewed through a traditional ideological lens tied to the legacy of liberation movements, but rather from a pragmatic perspective based on stability, investment, and repositioning within international partnership networks.”
Far from being an isolated act, Kenya’s decision – a significant regional power in East Africa – is part of a broader continental trend. The researcher points out that this nation embodies “a gradual transition from historical legitimacy logic to strategic relevance logic, where the autonomy initiative is seen as a functional and applicable solution, rather than just a political proposal among multiple options.”
This reorientation is part of a comprehensive strategy driven by Rabat, reshaping alliances in a pragmatic manner through economic and security levers. The expert notes that this approach has naturally led to “a progressive dismantling of the traditional bloc supporting the separatist thesis within the African Union,” especially as African countries, particularly those facing crises, “now tend to adopt realistic approaches that ensure regional stability and open up partnership prospects, instead of engaging in prolonged conflicts with high political and economic costs.”
On the flip side, the symbolic significance of Brahim Ghali’s reception, attended by only a few delegations, reflects harsh diplomatic reality. Beyond protocol, this event showcases “an obvious contraction in diplomatic support margins for the Front at the African level, with the support circle now focusing on a limited number of countries acting according to traditional approaches dating back to the Cold War era.” Moataded also sees it as a blatant proof of “the difficulty of expanding this support in light of geopolitical and economic changes prompting many countries to reassess their positions based on their national interests.”
As a result, the gap widens between the Moroccan offensive and the Polisario’s stagnation. This contrast signifies “a shift from a phase of narrative balance in the conflict to a phase of imbalance in influence relationships.” Ultimately, the analyst believes that “limited representation in the Front’s activities signals a progressive erosion of its ability to maintain a broad support network, strengthening the hypothesis that the settlement process is increasingly focusing on enshrining the autonomy initiative as a central option in the political resolution architecture of the conflict.”
Following the same line of thought, international relations researcher Jaouad El Kasmi observes a radical shift in Africa’s overall approach to this issue. He notes that many countries are transitioning “from dependence on the past and Cold War-era inherited ideologies to adopting political realism based on economic interests, development, and respect for states’ sovereignty,” a framework in which Kenya’s recent decision finds full meaning.
Continuing his analysis, the expert highlights Nairobi’s institutional weight on the continent. Therefore, its alignment with Moroccan territorial integrity sends a strong signal because “Nairobi has now understood that its future lies in food security, development, and investments.” In this context, “Morocco, thanks to the power of the Moroccan Office of Phosphates (OCP) and its global role in this field, will help overcome many obstacles in terms of food security.”
The magnitude of this turnaround is all the more striking as Kenya was once in Algeria’s orbit. By now joining the ranks of Rwanda or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the country confirms “the collapse of diplomatic support the Front has long relied on in this region.”
To illustrate this definitive breach, the recent Polisario Front celebrations serve as a case in point. The exclusive presence of South African and Mozambican representatives carries great significance, as “just as presences are read, absences are analyzed with the same importance.” According to El Kasmi, the inability of Algiers and the Polisario to mobilize their former allies constitutes “a failure and an explicit declaration of the end of the illusion,” proving that “African countries no longer want to provoke Morocco, a strong partner in many fields, for an entity that does not exist at the United Nations.”
In conclusion, this diplomatic tightening overwhelmingly demonstrates “the lack of African depth in the Polisario, which has become a simple functional entity serving the agenda of the Algerian-South African axis, which perceives Morocco’s rise as a threat to its continental leadership.” In the eyes of the researcher, this dynamic ultimately resembles “a correction of historical trajectory for the African Union and represents a path to turn the page on an entity born in the context of the Cold War, now isolated and finding only its sponsor, Algeria, and those who share its hostility towards Morocco, to echo its parades.”
