John Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and National Security Advisor during President Trump’s first term, recently published an opinion piece in The Washington Times titled “China and Russia Gain African Clout While America Ignores the Western Sahara Sovereignty Crisis.”
As a Moroccan-American — and someone who has lived in the city of Laayoune, not just heard about it — I felt compelled to respond. The timing of this article is notable, and the sheer number of inaccuracies it contains is difficult to overlook. One cannot rule out the possibility that some of these distortions may reflect the interests of parties that benefit from keeping the Western Sahara issue clouded.
Just as I would never hesitate to defend America’s territorial integrity, it is only natural that I take the same position when it comes to the land where I was born.
Before delving into a rebuttal of Mr. John Bolton’s article — marked by historical oversights and political generalizations — it’s worth asking: What leads a U.S. official, who has never visited the Sahara, never walked through the airports of Laayoune or Dakhla, to speak so confidently on a matter he appears to have misunderstood? Why adopt such firm positions while mischaracterizing the key phases, facts, and legal references surrounding this issue?
Perhaps this sudden interest isn’t entirely spontaneous. A deeper look at the sources behind such narratives might offer some clarity.
Let’s begin with the very first paragraph of Mr. John Bolton’s article, written in a tone that echoes ideological certainty:
“The United States must support a referendum allowing the Sahrawis to determine their future.”
To Mr. John Bolton, I say: as a former ambassador and senior national security official, you certainly know that Morocco agreed to a referendum at the 1981 African Union Summit in Nairobi. On June 26 of that year, King Hassan II declared before the Organization of African Unity:
“We have decided to accept the principle of a monitored referendum, whose modalities will simultaneously respect the goals of the latest recommendations by the Committee of Wise Men, as well as Morocco’s legitimate rights.”
I encourage Mr. Bolton to revisit the historical record and look into the reasons the referendum was never held. I would also invite him to examine who was eligible to vote — and who objected to the process — before proposing the idea of a “random referendum” that would include people from across the Sahel and Libya. Such a proposal would not stand even the most basic scrutiny in international legal or academic circles.
Mr. Bolton goes on to claim:
“This vast area on the western coast of North Africa, south of Morocco, has remained unstable since the late 1970s…”
This portrayal does not reflect today’s reality. The cities of Laayoune, Smara, and Dakhla enjoy peace and security surpassing many cities in the developed world. Mr. John Bolton’s omission of the significant development in the Moroccan Sahara is surprising, especially for someone frequently invited to speak at global events on matters of international security and diplomacy. As confirmed in a U.S. diplomatic cable dated August 17, 2008 — later released by WikiLeaks — Morocco invests nearly $2.7 billion annually in the development of the Sahara, despite the region’s population being under 400,000.
Mr. Bolton would benefit from visiting Morocco. A short trip would allow him to see firsthand that Laayoune is not the desert outpost some imagine, but a thriving urban center — perhaps even more developed in some areas than the city where he was born.
As for Mr. Bolton’s reference to growing Russian and Chinese influence in Africa, it’s an argument aimed at resonating with American strategic concerns. But trying to tie this to the Sahara issue may oversimplify Morocco’s long-standing and well-documented alliance with the United States. Unlike others in the region, Morocco has never leaned toward Moscow or Beijing, and has consistently positioned itself as a committed and credible partner to Washington.
Mr. Bolton continues:
“Two neighboring countries, Morocco and Mauritania, invaded the territory hoping to seize this buffer zone, but the native Sahrawis resisted through what became known as the Polisario Front.”
This telling omits critical context. The Polisario Front was originally established to oppose Spanish colonialism. It was only later that the group’s trajectory shifted under the influence of foreign patrons, including Muammar Gaddafi and Algeria’s military regime. Many of the Front’s early founders eventually returned to Morocco and now serve in official and elected capacities.
Regarding the “native Sahrawis,” it’s important to clarify that many of the people currently in the Tindouf camps were taken from Moroccan cities and remain there decades later — used as political capital while being denied basic rights. Their voices deserve to be heard outside the controlled environment of the camps.
Mr. Bolton’s insistence on a choice between independence or autonomy overlooks the detailed framework of Morocco’s Autonomy Plan, which ensures public consultation, rule of law, and participatory governance. It is unclear how he concluded that no such consultation would occur.
He also references the 1997 Houston Agreement, citing UN document S/1997/742, but leaves out the core issue: Morocco’s commitment to using the Spanish census — the only reliable source — was met with opposition by Polisario and Algeria, who sought to expand voter eligibility in ways that would undermine the process.
On the issue of Polisario’s alleged ties with Iran, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime, Mr. Bolton may wish to consult the article published by the Washington Post titled “Syria seeks to sever last Iran-linked networks for smuggling arms and cash”, as well as the Israeli Channel i24 News report exposing financial connections and logistical cooperation between these groups. Dismissing such findings without examination does not serve informed policy debate.
Mr. Bolton concludes his article as follows:
“U.S. policy on Western Sahara should return to its 1991 roots, supporting a referendum that allows the Sahrawi people to determine their future. Several members of Congress have visited the Tindouf camps over the years, meeting with Polisario leaders and American aid workers. More members should visit to understand the truth about the Sahrawi people.”
What Mr. Bolton conveniently omits is that dozens of U.S. lawmakers have also visited the Moroccan Sahara, met with its citizens and their elected representatives, and witnessed firsthand the prosperity and development underway. It would have been more constructive to urge action that eases the dire humanitarian situation in the Tindouf camps and to use his influence to support the release of the more than 40,000 people still trapped there under unacceptable conditions.
To level such reckless accusations against Morocco and its territorial integrity, for reasons that remain unclear, is not only regrettable — it is deeply troubling.
Indeed, doubt may be the most honest reaction one can have to Mr. Bolton’s latest publication.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Newslooks.com
You must Register or Login to post a comment.