The so-called “zero draft”, reportedly circulated by Washington as the first draft of a Security Council resolution on Western Sahara for 2026, is no mere temporary negotiating document. Rather, it amounts to a political and legal declaration of bankruptcy, dismantling the United Nations’ established doctrinal foundations, repudiating the most fundamental principles of international law, particularly the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the protection of the right of colonised peoples to self-determination, and dealing a severe blow to what little credibility the United States retains in its capacity as penholder for Security Council resolutions on Western Sahara.

Anyone examining the provisions of this draft will encounter a text that reeks of blatant bias and embodies an arrogant attempt to compel the Security Council to abandon its role as a guarantor of international peace and security and become an instrument for implementing a unilateral agenda designed to impose a colonial fait accompli through arbitrariness, coercion and violations of the most fundamental rules of international law.

The preamble of this scandalous draft begins with a resounding legal blunder by invoking the “recognition by a growing number of Member States of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara”. This ignores the fact that sovereignty is not determined through quid pro quo diplomacy or bilateral political positions, but by the binding norms of international law. Sovereignty over Western Sahara, a Territory awaiting decolonisation, as reaffirmed by the Fourth Committee’s resolution last 15 October, belongs exclusively to the Sahrawi people. Neither Washington, nor Paris, nor even the Security Council itself has the authority to confer upon Morocco a sovereignty it does not possess and cannot acquire by such means.

The methodological disaster becomes even more apparent in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the “0 draft”, which declare that “autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is the only feasible solution” and that Morocco’s proposal constitutes “the sole basis for negotiations”. Here, Washington falls into a glaring logical contradiction: how can a resolution call on the parties to engage in “negotiations” while predetermining their outcome? Imposing Morocco’s colonial proposal as the sole option while eliminating independence altogether has nothing to do with genuine negotiations. It is an attempt to impose submission, stripping the political process of any substance or legitimacy.

American audacity in its disregard for established UN principles reaches its zenith in operative paragraph 1, which explicitly proposes changing MINURSO’s name by removing the pivotal letter “R”, which stands for “Referendum”, thereby reducing it to the “United Nations Mission for Western Sahara”. This manipulation of the mission’s very name, coupled with paragraphs 2 and 4—which provide for halving its military component by January 2027, ending its peacekeeping mandate in April 2027 and transforming it into a mere “special political mission”—reflects Washington’s contempt for three decades of UN peace efforts. Those efforts have been obstructed precisely by Morocco’s intransigence, shielded by France and other powers representing old and new forms of colonialism.

Rather than holding accountable the party that has obstructed the United Nations and its mission in organising the referendum, the American draft punishes the UN mission itself and makes a mockery of decades of Security Council resolutions by effectively bringing its existence to an end. In doing so, it exposes the entire region to the risk of a security crisis and dismantles the only mechanism that has maintained even a minimum level of UN monitoring of this protracted conflict.

The document also vacillates between superficiality and personalisation. Its preamble contains praise for Trump and its purported leadership of peace efforts, placing the unilateral actions of the US President above the historical principles and established precedents of both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Humanitarian issues have not escaped this crude politicisation either. Paragraph 10 seeks to exploit the plight of Sahrawi refugees by introducing registration requirements and political conditions in what amounts to a barely disguised attempt to redefine their humanitarian status and exert pressure on them. Meanwhile, the draft turns a blind eye to systematic human rights violations and the siege imposed on the occupied territories of Western Sahara.

Devoid of the traditional balance expected of Security Council texts and drafted to serve the interests of one party alone, this proposed resolution is destined to encounter serious obstacles during closed-door consultations. Its one-sided alignment is likely to meet categorical opposition from permanent members such as Russia and China, which reject American hegemony and attempts to undermine established UN principles. It will also face firm opposition from the Frente POLISARIO and Algeria, as well as the broad consensus reflected in the positions of 151 states at the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee. Moreover, adoption of the text in its current form should encounter resistance from several Security Council’s non-permanent members, notably Denmark, Pakistan, Latvia, Greece, Somalia and even the United Kingdom. Endorsing such a text would call into question the very purpose and relevance of the Security Council and the United Nations themselves.

Washington has drafted its first proposal according to the logic of power rather than the power of reason and law. In doing so, it repudiates a right guaranteed under international law, apparently believing that a stroke of the pen in New York can erase decades of national struggle by the Sahrawi people under the leadership of their historic vanguard, the Frente POLISARIO.

If the US State Department wishes to spare the Security Council deep divisions or a devastating veto, it must introduce sweeping amendments that rein in the excesses of American unilateralism and preserve the minimum standards of dignity and respect owed to established UN principles. It must also curb the obstinacy and arrogance of Trump’s advisers, drawn from the world of business and lacking political shrewdness, before the United States loses what little honour and credibility it has left, if indeed, any of that credibility remains.

An illusory diplomatic victory, manufactured by enshrining arbitrary departures from established principles in a UN resolution, cannot confer the slightest legitimacy on an illegal occupation, nor can it force the Sahrawi people to submit to a colonial fait accompli they have resisted through blood and sacrifice for more than five decades. History has demonstrated time and again that the inalienable right of peoples to freedom and self-determination will always prevail over the arrogance of power, and that the banners of freedom will inevitably rise over the ruins of colonialism.