Algeria, South Africa Mobilize against African Resolution on Western Sahara Issue

Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum attends a meeting with foreign Ministers and officials from countries neighboring Libya to discuss the conflict in Libya, in Algiers, Algeria January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Ramzi Boudina
Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum attends a meeting with foreign Ministers and officials from countries neighboring Libya to discuss the conflict in Libya, in Algiers, Algeria January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Ramzi Boudina
TT
20

Algeria, South Africa Mobilize against African Resolution on Western Sahara Issue

Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum attends a meeting with foreign Ministers and officials from countries neighboring Libya to discuss the conflict in Libya, in Algiers, Algeria January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Ramzi Boudina
Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum attends a meeting with foreign Ministers and officials from countries neighboring Libya to discuss the conflict in Libya, in Algiers, Algeria January 23, 2020. REUTERS/Ramzi Boudina

Algeria and South Africa are working in full swing to either scrap or amend resolution 693, which was adopted by the African Summit in Nouakchott in 2018, diplomatic sources told Asharq Al-Awsat.

A well-informed diplomatic source at the African Union (AU) headquarters in Addis Ababa, who requested anonymity, reported that Algerian Foreign Minister Sabri Boukadoum had pushed for getting rid of the decision during his January 11 visit to Pretoria, South Africa.

Resolution 693 recognized that the Western Sahara issue is the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations. It established an African mechanism comprising the AU Troika, whose role is limited to “providing effective support to the efforts led by the UN.”

Other sources ruled out that South Africa and Algeria succeed in their endeavors noting that Cyril Ramaphosa, president of both the AU and South Africa, had caved under pressure he faced last December at the 14th extraordinary AU summit on Silencing the Guns in Africa.

Ramaphosa had no choice but to acknowledge the resolution’s validity.

Nevertheless, sources noted that official statements may be in contradiction with hidden intentions held by the South African leader.

South Africa’s permanent representative to the UN had sent a letter on December 29, 2020, to the UN Secretary-General, related to what he called “the decisions of the fourteenth extraordinary session of the Assembly of the African Union, on the theme “Silencing the Guns”, including a decision on the Western Sahara issue.”

The correspondence triggered a strong reaction from Morocco.

Morocco’s Permanent Representative to the UN Omar Hilale, for his part, sent a letter to the UN Secretary General and to the President and members of the Security Council, in which he denounced South Africa’s the maneuvers and misleading tactics about the Western Sahara issue.

In his letter, Hilale pointed out that the South African correspondence misleadingly suggests that the AU extraordinary summit on “Silencing the Guns” was exclusively dedicated to the Moroccan Sahara issue, while the reality is totally different.

The South African approach to singling out the Sahara issue reveals a double attempt, at the procedural and substantive levels, to mislead the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council, the Moroccan diplomat explained.

At the procedural level, the decision and declaration of the AU 14th extraordinary summit consist of 57 paragraphs, of which only one addresses the Sahara issue, he said, adding that the wording of this paragraph is declaratory in nature, and is in no way operational.

At the substantive level, Ambassador Hilale clarified that South Africa has knowingly ignored a set of issues discussed and included in the AU Extraordinary Summit’s decision and declaration such as the threats and conflicts that hamper the development of the African continent, and the bold policies and structural economic advances, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area.

South Africa’s unavowed goal is to focus the attention of the Secretary-General and the Security Council on one issue among the 40 or so topics raised during the AU Summit at the expense of the great concerns, expectations and hopes of the continent, the Moroccan diplomat outlined in his letter.



US Opens Diplomatic Track to Revise Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire Deal

07 July 2025, Lebanon, Beirut: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shakes hands with Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack ahead of their meeting in the presence of US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, in Beirut. Photo: Lebanese Presidency Office Apai/APA Images via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
07 July 2025, Lebanon, Beirut: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shakes hands with Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack ahead of their meeting in the presence of US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, in Beirut. Photo: Lebanese Presidency Office Apai/APA Images via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
TT
20

US Opens Diplomatic Track to Revise Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire Deal

07 July 2025, Lebanon, Beirut: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shakes hands with Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack ahead of their meeting in the presence of US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, in Beirut. Photo: Lebanese Presidency Office Apai/APA Images via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa
07 July 2025, Lebanon, Beirut: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shakes hands with Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack ahead of their meeting in the presence of US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, in Beirut. Photo: Lebanese Presidency Office Apai/APA Images via ZUMA Press Wire/dpa

A high-stakes visit by US envoy Tom Barrack to Beirut has opened a “diplomatic window” to de-escalate tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border, as Lebanese officials formally submitted a response to a US proposal aimed at ending hostilities – one that includes a path toward disarming Hezbollah.

Barrack’s arrival followed a spike in Israeli military activity that many in Lebanon interpreted as a warning: either accept the US-brokered framework or face the risk of wider conflict.

Lebanese officials told Asharq al-Awsat that Barrack praised Beirut’s “measured and thoughtful” response and plans to study it carefully before relaying his feedback through the US Embassy in Beirut within days. He may return to Lebanon within two weeks if progress continues as expected.

The official response, presented in the name of President Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, did not include Hezbollah’s stance.

The group reportedly abstained from joining the presidential committee tasked with drafting the reply.

Still, Berri later submitted separate comments on behalf of the Shiite political alliance that includes his Amal Movement and Hezbollah.

A source close to Berri said the speaker emphasized the need for a “firm and verifiable ceasefire commitment from Israel before any further discussions.”

US Seeks to Patch Ceasefire Gaps

Speaking to reporters in Beirut, Barrack acknowledged that the ceasefire agreement, which paused cross-border fighting in November, lacked strong enforcement mechanisms.

There was no US guarantor in that deal, he said, suggesting that the current talks aim to close those loopholes.

Salam echoed the sentiment, saying the American envoy brought with him “new arrangements to halt hostilities.”

Barrack, who also serves as the US Ambassador to Türkiye and special envoy on Syria, met with Aoun alongside the US ambassador to Lebanon and other officials.

Following the 90-minute meeting, the presidency issued a statement saying Barrack had received “Lebanon’s comprehensive ideas for a solution.”

“Lebanon Must Seize the Moment”

In remarks to journalists, Barrack urged Lebanon to seize what he called a fleeting opportunity for peace and reconstruction.

“What the government gave us was something spectacular in a very short period of time,” Barrack told reporters after meeting Aoun. “I’m unbelievably satisfied with the response.”

Barrack said the current opportunity would require everyone to compromise a little, including letting go of false hopes, unrealistic expectations, and internal hostilities.

When asked about Hezbollah’s rejection of disarmament, Barrack drew a firm line.

He made it clear that the United States has no intention of engaging directly with Hezbollah, insisting that it is up to the Lebanese themselves to address the group’s role. He dismissed any notion that Washington was pushing for regime change or aiming to reshape Lebanon’s sectarian political system.

Instead, he stressed that meaningful reform must come from within, warning that if Lebanon chooses not to act, the rest of the region will continue advancing without it.

Barrack rejected claims that the United States had failed to ensure Israel’s adherence to the previous ceasefire, arguing that the issue stemmed from the absence of a formal security guarantor.

He explained that while a mechanism existed - primarily through UNIFIL - it lacked the authority and credibility needed to enforce compliance. He noted that the Lebanese government is now working to address those shortcomings.

Barrack revealed that Lebanon’s reply addressed 15 specific points. While some differed from the US proposal, he called the Lebanese response “highly responsible.”

He also linked the US initiative to broader international frameworks, including IMF reforms and Lebanese cabinet policies, suggesting that southern Lebanon’s reconstruction and normalization with Israel are part of a larger diplomatic puzzle.

Barrack also pointed to recent developments involving Israel and Syria, revealing that dialogue between the two has begun, and describing the process as complex but necessary.

As for Lebanon's fraught relationship with Israel, Barrack struck a cautiously hopeful tone. "I believe Lebanon and Israel are ultimately seeking the same thing. Israel does not want war with Lebanon, nor does it wish to occupy Lebanon."

Concluding his remarks, Barrack stressed the role of the US, saying, "America cannot provide all the answers. We can only assist from the outside. The real solutions must come from within."