During the first session of the Moroccan-Kenyan Joint Cooperation Commission held last Thursday, Nairobi’s explicit support for the autonomy initiative under Moroccan sovereignty highlighted profound geopolitical changes. These upheavals, reshaping the power dynamics within the African Union, were also evident in 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.
With this momentum, the Kingdom of Morocco is consolidating its presence on the African stage and increasing diplomatic breakthroughs. This shift, affecting countries once aligned with the hostile Algiers-Pretoria axis, pushes the separatist thesis into unprecedented isolation. Now, numerous African nations are reconsidering their foreign policy, preferring the logic of mutual interests and shedding ideological burdens that previously hindered partnerships with a major player like Morocco.
Analyzing this new scenario, strategic affairs researcher Hicham Moataded sees 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 linked to 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 movement. The researcher specifies to Hespress that this nation exemplifies “a gradual transition from a logic of historical legitimacy to a logic of strategic relevance, where the autonomy initiative is perceived as a functional and applicable solution, not just a political proposal among many options.”
This realignment 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 partnership prospects, instead of engaging in long-term conflicts with high political and economic costs.”
On the opposing side, the symbolic significance of Brahim Ghali’s reception—attended by few delegations— reflects a harsh diplomatic reality. Beyond protocol, this event mirrors “an evident shrinking of 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 “clear evidence of the difficulty in broadening 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 Morocco’s offensive and Polisario’s stagnation. This contrast signifies “a shift from a phase of balanced narratives in the conflict to a phase of imbalance in influence dynamics.” Ultimately, the analyst believes that “the limited representation in the Front’s activities is a sign of a gradual erosion of its ability to maintain a broad support network, strengthening the hypothesis that the settlement process is increasingly leaning towards the entrenchment of the autonomy initiative as a central option in the political solution architecture to the conflict.”
Along the same lines, international relations researcher Jaouad El Kasmi observes a radical shift in Africa’s overall approach to this issue. He notes that “many countries are moving from dependency 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 its full significance.
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 realized that its future lies in food security, development, and investments.” In this context, “Morocco, through the power of the Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP) and its global role in this field, will help overcome numerous obstacles in terms of food security.”
The magnitude of this shift is all the more striking as Kenya was previously in Algeria’s orbit. By now joining the ranks of Rwanda or the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country confirms “the collapse of the diplomatic support the Front has long relied on in this region.”
To illustrate this definitive rupture, the recent Polisario celebrations serve as a case in point. The exclusive presence of South African and Mozambican representatives holds significant importance because “just as presences are read, absences are analyzed with equal importance.” According to El Kasmi, the inability of Algeria and 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 of Polisario, now a mere functional entity serving the agenda of the Algero-South African axis, which perceives Morocco’s rise as a threat to its continental leadership.” According to the researcher, this dynamic ultimately resembles “a correction of historical trajectory for the African Union, paving the way to turn the page on an entity born in the Cold War context, now isolated and finding allies only in its sponsor, Algeria, and those who share its hostility towards Morocco.”
