Western Sahara at a Strategic Crossroads

As Morocco Fails to Deliver a Credible Autonomy Plan, Washington May Impose a U.S.-Shaped Self-Determination Framework

Executive Overview

The Western Sahara file is entering a decisive phase. As senior U.S. envoy Massad Boulos conducts high-level consultations across North Africa, Washington’s growing focus on critical minerals and strategic supply chains is reshaping its calculus. Nearly two decades after Morocco presented its 2007 autonomy initiative, the absence of a concrete, operational framework has become increasingly difficult to ignore—particularly for an administration driven by transactional outcomes rather than procedural diplomacy.

This evolving context raises a credible possibility: the United States may move beyond rhetorical support for Morocco’s autonomy concept and push for a substantive self-determination arrangement aligned with American strategic interests—one that could converge, paradoxically, with long-standing Algerian and Sahrawi demands for genuine autonomy.

The Moroccan Autonomy Proposal: A Concept Without Architecture

Morocco’s 2007 “Initiative for the Negotiation of an Autonomy Statute” has long been described as “serious, credible, and realistic.” Yet, nearly 20 years later, no detailed legal, institutional, or fiscal architecture has been produced to operationalize it.

The original proposal remains a list of general principles, lacking:

• clearly defined legislative or executive powers,
• fiscal sovereignty or independent budgetary authority,
• control over natural resources,
• enforceable guarantees of implementation.

This strategic ambiguity has served Rabat diplomatically, allowing international partners to endorse the idea of autonomy without confronting its practical absence. However, for an administration that prioritizes deliverables and enforceable agreements, the lack of tangible progress is increasingly untenable.

Moreover, Morocco’s own governance model undermines the credibility of its offer. The country’s “advanced regionalization,” enshrined in the 2011 constitution, has not translated into meaningful decentralization. No Moroccan region exercises sovereign control over strategic resources, taxation, or legislation—raising legitimate doubts that Western Sahara could be treated differently without creating destabilizing precedents within the Kingdom itself.

Trump’s Transactional Lens: Why the Status Quo Is Losing Value

Unlike previous U.S. administrations that tolerated diplomatic incrementalism, the Trump administration approaches geopolitical disputes through a transactional framework: problems are to be resolved, not managed indefinitely.

The Western Sahara conflict fits squarely into this logic. Earlier indications that Washington sought a rapid breakthrough—once publicly framed around a 60-day window—have yielded no concrete Moroccan concessions. In parallel, U.S. strategic priorities have shifted sharply toward securing critical minerals essential for defence, technology, and energy transition.

Recent U.S. actions underscore this shift:

• direct federal investment in rare earth processing,
• strategic partnerships to counter Chinese dominance,
• aggressive repositioning in resource-rich territories.

In this context, Western Sahara’s mineral endowment takes on heightened importance.

Western Sahara’s Strategic Resource Profile

Beyond the well-known Bou Craa phosphate reserves—among the largest globally and vital for food security—the territory holds significant untapped potential in:

• rare earth elements,
• iron ore,
• titanium and vanadium,
• zirconium,
• and possibly uranium.

Geological surveys have identified unusually high concentrations of strategic minerals, positioning Western Sahara as a potentially critical node in future non-Chinese supply chains.

For Washington, continued legal ambiguity over sovereignty and resource control is incompatible with large-scale, long-term investment. The current Moroccan autonomy concept, devoid of enforceable guarantees and resource sovereignty, fails to provide the legal certainty required for American strategic capital.

Toward a “Third Way”: Enforced Autonomy Through Self-Determination

A growing body of analysis suggests the United States may eventually bypass Morocco’s stalled proposal and advance its own framework—one that would impose a form of autonomy robust enough to secure U.S. interests while satisfying international legal standards.

Such a framework could include:

• Effective sovereignty over natural resources for the Sahrawi entity, aligning with international law and court rulings;
• Independent economic and commercial capacity, enabling direct partnerships and joint ventures;
• International guarantees, potentially under U.N. or U.S. oversight, to ensure implementation;
• Distinct legislative and judicial institutions, allowing genuine self-governance.

This model would depart sharply from Morocco’s administrative decentralization narrative and align more closely with the Sahrawi right to self-determination.

Notably, significant U.S. development financing has already been signalled for the region, particularly in renewable energy and critical minerals—investments that would require precisely the type of legal clarity Morocco has failed to provide.

Algeria: The Indispensable Actor

The prioritization of Algiers in recent U.S. diplomatic engagement is neither symbolic nor incidental. Washington increasingly recognizes that no durable solution is possible without Algeria’s consent and participation.

Algeria’s consistent support for Sahrawi self-determination—long framed by critics as obstructionist—now appears as strategic consistency rooted in decolonization principles. From a U.S. perspective, Algeria also represents:

• a stable regional power,
• a credible economic and energy partner,
• and a gateway to broader North African and Sahelian stability.

Any imposed settlement that ignores Algeria would lack enforceability; any settlement shaped with Algeria stands a chance of durability.

Implications for the Polisario and the Sahrawi Population

For the Polisario Front and the Sahrawi refugee population, evolving U.S. pragmatism could mark a long-delayed inflection point. The Polisario has shown conditional openness to autonomy—provided it is subject to a referendum and guarantees real self-determination.

This flexibility contrasts with Morocco’s longstanding rejection of any vote involving independence as an option. From a strategic standpoint, this asymmetry increasingly weakens Rabat’s position in a deal-driven negotiation environment.

Strategic Outlook

The Western Sahara question is no longer solely a legacy decolonization dispute. It has become a strategic resource and governance issue, intersecting with great-power competition, supply chain security, and regional stability.

For the United States, the choice is narrowing:

• maintain a symbolic autonomy framework that delivers neither peace nor strategic access,
• or enforce a substantive settlement that reshapes the regional balance while securing American interests.

Should Washington pursue the latter, history may record that a transactional U.S. administration—motivated by minerals rather than norms—ultimately advanced the principles of international law and genuine self-determination more decisively than decades of conventional diplomacy.