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.



Jordan Moves to Ban Muslim Brotherhood as ‘Illegal’ Group

Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Momani announces details of terrorist cell arrests in Amman. (Petra)
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Momani announces details of terrorist cell arrests in Amman. (Petra)
TT
20

Jordan Moves to Ban Muslim Brotherhood as ‘Illegal’ Group

Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Momani announces details of terrorist cell arrests in Amman. (Petra)
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Momani announces details of terrorist cell arrests in Amman. (Petra)

As the fallout continues from Jordan’s recent security crackdown on a militant cell accused of manufacturing missiles and drones, officials remain tight-lipped about why a court-banned branch of the Muslim Brotherhood continues to operate freely.

The group, declared illegal by a final court ruling in 2020, has maintained its political activities with apparent impunity—a contradiction analysts say points to selective enforcement of the law.

While Jordanian authorities have detained extremists over what was described as a “chaos plot,” they have avoided confronting the unlicensed movement. The Brotherhood’s continued presence, despite Article 159 of the penal code criminalizing illegal associations with potential jail sentences, has puzzled observers.

Analysts say the government’s “soft containment” approach reflects a broader political culture in Amman that avoids clashes with groups enjoying popular support, even if that means ignoring binding court decisions.

Critics argue the state’s flexibility towards the Brotherhood undermines legal consistency and raises questions about the rule of law, especially as other groups face swift and public consequences.

Jordan’s government appears to have taken a markedly tougher stance following the recent exposure of the militant cell allegedly backed by foreign actors and accused of planning attacks with home-built missiles and drones targeting domestic sites—not under the pretext of “supporting the resistance in Gaza”.

The discovery of the plot has prompted a reassessment within the country’s decision-making circles, which are now closely watching for verdicts from the State Security Court—the judicial body with jurisdiction over terrorism and national security cases.

While authorities have clamped down on the immediate threat, they have stopped short of confronting the unlicensed Muslim Brotherhood group and its political wing, the Islamic Action Front.

Analysts say officials are treading cautiously, wary of provoking parliamentary unrest or street mobilizations that the faction could spearhead if directly challenged.

The government’s current posture suggests a strategic pause—one that balances national security concerns with the potential political fallout of taking on a well-rooted opposition force.

Jordanian decision-makers, however, are stepping up preparations on multiple fronts as the country braces for a possible legal showdown with the Brotherhood.

Authorities are weighing the implications of formally designating the Brotherhood as an unlicensed entity, a move that would entail shutting down its activities, seizing its assets and properties, and treating any political statements or public events linked to its members as violations subject to prosecution under the penal code and counterterrorism laws.

Behind the scenes, government institutions are working to draw a legal and operational distinction between the Brotherhood and the Islamic Action Front, which remains registered under the country’s political parties law.

This delicate balancing act hinges on upcoming hearings at the State Security Court, expected to begin next week. However, officials fear that any legal escalation could spark backlash, including street protests or social media campaigns led by the Islamic Action Front.

Analysts say such a scenario could force authorities to take more decisive measures, including dissolving the party itself, in a bid to dismantle what critics view as a monopolized Islamist platform and reassert control over religious political representation in the kingdom.