Moroccan foreign policy and the price of its alliance with USA
Moroccan American relations are remarkable in the history of international relations. In addition to the fact that Morocco was the first country to recognize our independence, our friendly relationship with this African country have not experienced any interruption since 1777. While many nations which have enjoyed a long history of friendly relations have a common language or cultural dimensions, Morocco and the United States built their relationship on historical roots and human values that united them on issues of freedom and democracy and the rejection of dictatorship and tyranny.
The commonalities that Morocco has with the United States are rare and certainly not to be found in Morocco’s neighbors. Whether Spain, during the era of General Franco (who was Hitler’s ally) or Algeria after independence and its alliance with communist Russia, too often there has been a willingness for neighbors to side with dictatorial regimes.
If United States soil formed a safe haven for European Jews who fled from the grip of Hitler, Morocco played the same role through the protection that its king provided to the Jews on its land. Interestingly, even centuries before, after the end of the Islamic presence in Andalusia in 1492, Morocco offered protection to Jews seeking refuge from the oppression of Queen Isabella and her husband Fernandez.
It is no coincidence today that Morocco is the strongest supporter of the United States at both regional and international levels. The Kingdom of Morocco, thanks to the effectiveness of its security and intelligence services, and its preventive and preemptive policy, is one of Washington’s biggest allies in the fight against terrorism, and thanks to the information provided to us by the intelligence apparatus of this country, we have succeeded in confronting many terrorist operations and saving the lives of many innocent Americans.
While some believe that the Moroccan American alliance is a natural outcome of Morocco’s historical, economic, and political choices, we must not forget that this alliance often collides with the interests of other allies and international economic powers that see and believe that their former African colonies are a monopoly, and that dealing with these (former colonies) must pass through its diplomatic channels and economic institutions.
Morocco’s attempts to diversify its sources of armaments and to build its economic development projects were not welcomed by many European countries. They seemed to prefer a continued colonial relationship. Yet we understand the nature of commercial competition between American and European companies, and we understand the behavior of the world of finance and business.
What is difficult to understand are the political positions of some countries, especially Germany, which seemed upset by the Moroccan mediation role played in Libya between various parties. Berlin seemed upset that Morocco wasn’t promoting Germany’s narrow interests. Yet, all the world knew very well that the role of Morocco played was in coordination with the United Nations and Washington and was designed to ensure the security of Libya and the security of the entire North African region.
An interesting question is whether Germany is seeking revenge on America and trying to block its way in Africa through the Moroccan gate. Given that Rabat is today considered an important economic center and a strategic gateway to the continent of Africa, it isn’t hard to see what Germany’s angle might be.
Would Germany prefer America’s absence from the African arena, so that it could be free to manipulate African nations however it wants, even by robbing their wealth, curbing their development projects, and manipulating their interests by fueling border conflicts, as it does between Morocco and Algeria?
Are Germans resentful of the calls for calm and reconciliation pursued by Washington? And does Berlin see in them a threat to their narrow interests?
The American recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over the Sahara effectively blocked the way for some European parties to bargain over Morocco’s territorial integrity in return for promised investment privileges. The truth of the matter is that the United States’ recognition of the Moroccan Sahara granted Morocco the opportunity to be freed from the power of bargaining without any compensation. An American who wishes to invest in Morocco does not need the approval of Washington. The same cannot be said for German or Spanish investors because both Berlin and Madrid want to regulate such things.
Morocco’s openness to the American military industry is considered a commonsense and entirely natural in view of America’s leadership and strength. Even though European nations also rely heavily on American defensive systems, many in Europe resent Morocco’s decisions. And Morocco’s adoption of a policy of diversifying the sources of its weapons is a matter of national sovereignty. Thus, it is strange that it is even necessary to discuss it.
Morocco’s foreign policy today has moved to high speed in many issues, and Rabat is building its positions based on common interest, away from all kinds of suspicious deals pursued by some military regimes in the region.
Washington’s conviction of the pivotal role that Morocco plays in security issues, the fight against poverty in Africa, and the transnational human development policy opened the eyes of American decision-makers to the necessity of betting on Morocco and working cooperatively their mutual and common interests in Africa.
When America invests in a country, it helps turn that country into a profitable and thriving party with the goal being long term economic growth and prosperity. With that prosperity, a solid consumer base is built which can fuel long-term economic health. All of this is the opposite of the colonial logic pursued by colonial powers that look for backwardness in hopes of leveraging it as an opportunity to bargain harshly.
Morocco’s singularity with its geographic location, its balanced democratic project, and the wisdom of its leadership have reassured the American investor and stirred the winds of competition. But America’s interest in Morocco has become a source of European resentment against Rabat.
Morocco has been reaping the fruits of more than twenty-two years of hard work, to which all the country’s institutions contributed under the leadership of King Mohammed VI — during whose reign Morocco has turned into a leading investment destination in Africa and the Mediterranean basin. But some in Europe are not happy with this development.
Interestingly, Moroccan American common interests exceed, in some respects, the geographic borders of North Africa. The return of relations between Rabat and Tel Aviv confirms Washington’s desire for Morocco to play a pivotal role in the peace process in the Middle East. However, despite the nobility and importance of this goal for peace, voices of jealousy and confusion have arisen in several Arab capitals, especially Algeria, to denounce these relations — sometimes in an anti-Semitic harangue, describing such efforts as treachery. In a desperate attempt to undermine the role of Morocco and the ability of its diplomatic machine to break the stalemate between Tel Aviv and Ramallah on one hand, and Tel Aviv and Gaza on the other, jealous voices worked against peace.
The nature of the campaigns against Morocco are not dissimilar to what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has faced from Iran and its allies. But one important difference is that the chorus of hostility against Morocco is led by Algeria and supported by some European powers, and at times is in coordination with Iran.
There are several important questions about some European positions towards the Moroccan American alliance, and the extent to which they are mere pretexts and motivated to undermine Moroccan and American interests.
Has the alliance with Washington in North Africa become a reason for systematic European campaigns?
Are Spain, Germany and Algeria working, under Iranian instigation, to block any American presence in North Africa? And why?
Does Germany fear any American role that might confound its narrow self interest in Libya? Does this have anything to do with its campaign against Morocco?
Has the balance of power in North Africa and the Mediterranean basin entered the phase of reconstruction and re-distribution of roles?
Can some European countries accept the historical imperatives and formulate less aggressive and antagonistic policies towards the countries to their south in Northern Africa?
Finally, does the Biden administration realize the seriousness of the hostile campaigns against its ally Morocco, because of its strategic choices and because it has bet heavily on the depth of its relations with the United States? More by the Author
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
