Analysis based on the projections of Algerian diplomat and analyst Ahmed Hafsi (@ahafsidz)
Platform “Don’t Forget Western Sahara” – October 27, 2025
Just days before the UN Security Council votes on the renewal of the MINURSO mandate, diplomatic divisions are deeper than ever.
According to a detailed thread posted on X (formerly Twitter) by Algerian diplomat Ahmed Hafsi, the United States currently has only five or six secure votes—far from the nine needed to pass its draft resolution.
The scenario confirms what many observers warned yesterday: the UN now faces a stark dilemma between international law and political pressure from powerful member states.
A Divided Council: Between Law and Power Politics
Hafsi’s analysis reveals that Washington is pushing for a new resolution to renew MINURSO that would include language indirectly legitimizing Morocco’s so-called “autonomy initiative” over occupied Western Sahara.
Yet the text has triggered strong opposition both from permanent members and non-permanent ones. Facing this lack of support, U.S. diplomats are reportedly considering two options: amending the draft to make it more acceptable, or intensifying pressure on reluctant governments.
Among the five permanent members, the United States and France are expected to vote in favor, while the United Kingdom, China, and Russia would likely abstain—though Moscow might use its veto if the resolution openly contradicts international law or legitimizes the occupation.
Among the ten non-permanent members, the positions are equally fragmented:
– Algeria would vote against.
– Denmark, Pakistan, South Korea, and Slovenia would likely abstain.
– Sierra Leone and Panama are expected to support the U.S. draft.
– Guyana, despite ties with Morocco and Gulf states supporting Rabat, may abstain due to its own territorial dispute with Venezuela over the Essequibo region—a case with striking parallels to Western Sahara.
– Greece and Somalia remain undecided, and could abstain unless they face direct diplomatic pressure from Washington or its allies.
With this lineup, the United States can count on no more than five or six votes, far below the nine required for adoption.
If consultations confirm this arithmetic, Washington might revise the wording or delay the vote rather than risk an open diplomatic defeat.
More Than a Technical Mandate
The October 30 vote is not just about renewing a peacekeeping mission. It’s a test of the UN’s credibility and of the international community’s commitment to decolonization and self-determination.
For years, the U.S. and France have tried to recast Western Sahara as a “regional dispute” solvable through compromise, sidelining the fact that it is a non-self-governing territory under occupation.
In contrast, Algeria, Russia, China, and several African states insist that the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination is non-negotiable and that no Security Council resolution can override the UN Charter or the International Court of Justice’s 1975 advisory opinion, which clearly rejected Morocco’s sovereignty claims.
As Sahrawi president Brahim Ghali recently stated, the UN’s passive stance has turned into complicity with the occupation. Any move to impose “autonomy” under Moroccan rule, he warned, means rewarding aggression and punishing the colonized.
The debate in New York is therefore not only about MINURSO’s future but about whether the UN will stand by its founding principles or give in to realpolitik.
Possible Scenarios
- Adoption of an amended text: Washington may water down the language—avoiding explicit references to Morocco’s autonomy plan—to secure the minimum nine votes.
- Failure or veto: If the draft keeps its current bias, Russia could veto it, or the vote might simply be postponed pending further talks.
- Technical rollover: A short, technical extension of MINURSO’s mandate could buy time and prevent a direct confrontation between major powers.
In any of these scenarios, one thing is clear: Western Sahara is back at the center of global diplomacy. Attempts to transform a decolonization case into a “regional autonomy issue” are now facing growing resistance—even inside the Security Council itself.
Conclusion
As the October 30 deadline approaches, the United States faces a tough diplomatic challenge: persuading a divided Council to adopt a resolution that many see as a breach of international law.
If the draft fails, it will show that the Sahrawi cause still carries legal and moral weight, and that efforts to impose unilateral “autonomy” have reached their limit.
As Ahmed Hafsi noted:
“It will be difficult for the United States to convince Council members to support a resolution on Western Sahara that constitutes a blatant violation of international law and of the Council’s own decisions.”
On October 30, the world will watch whether the Security Council upholds the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination — or once again bows to the politics of occupation.
Translation and adaptation by the Platform “Don’t Forget Western Sahara”
Source: Analysis based on public projections by Ahmed Hafsi (@ahafsidz), 27 October 2025.