The recent United Nations Security Council vote that endorsed Morocco’s Autonomy Plan for Western Sahara captured international attention. Upon the voting results that saw Morocco and its allies cheering what they called a diplomatic breakthrough, there might have been some feeling of disappointment at the fact that some hard-won friends or seemingly reliable partners of the North African kingdom have to date chosen not to fully embrace this increasingly irreversible Moroccan momentum.
A case in point is Pakistan which, despite being a long-standing ally of Morocco, chose to abstain on this matter. For some in Morocco, the decision was shocking. Since the country’s independence, Pakistan has consistently supported Morocco in the OIC, Non-Aligned Movement, and the United Nations. However, in international relations, friends and foreign policy are two different concepts. The former often disputes the latter due to the country’s behavior being ruled by law and precedent, not memory and love. Hence, Pakistan made a complex decision, balancing its choice between all three.
Between Principle and Pragmatism
Ultimately, Pakistan’s abstention was a result of the principles of the country’s foreign policy. The UNSC resolution praised Morocco’s autonomy plan as the “most feasible solution.” The fact that it did not even mention the idea of an independence referendum for the Sahrawi people raised delicate legal and moral issues for Islamabad. For example, it could have weakened Pakistan’s own diplomatic position on Kashmir.
Pakistan always insists on the implementation of UN resolutions that speak to the right of people of Kashmir to self-determination. Supporting Morocco’s autonomy model based on sovereignty would set an unwanted precedent, especially since the Indian narrative on the Kashmir issue is also entirely based on territorial integrity.
As such, the right choice for Pakistan was not opposition but abstention. It was Pakistan’s form of self-defense. It ensured that there was no moral dissonance in its position on the right of self-determination. Had Islamabad chosen to unequivocally embrace the latest USC resolution, Indian strategists would have almost immediately made that a supporting detail in any upcoming legal or narrative confrontation with their Pakistani counterparts.
Context Matters: Somalia, Guyana, and the Lessons of Interest
Nor is Pakistan an isolated case on the matter at hand. Some other countries have approached this latest resolution through the prism of domestic and regional sensibilities. For example, Somalia’s support for Morocco flowed from its federal internal dynamics, with Jubbaland and Puntland having sought regional autonomy for a long time. This situation has the central government concerned about secessionist fragmentation and Somaliland’s declarations of sovereignty since the past more than 3 decades as it aims to achieve international recognition.
Declaring Morocco’s autonomy was thus a statement in support of its own national narrative, “unity within decentralisation” for Mogadishu. Similarly, Guyana’s case with the Essequibo region and its dispute with Venezuela has implications for the issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty recognition.
Likewise, South Korea’s unresolved division and Pakistan’s Kashmir dispute are cases where supporting devolution implicitly downsizes the right of self-determination. Through that comparative lens, abstaining in such a vote fits Pakistan’s form; countries with contested regions or internal autonomy debates tend to remain neutral or abstain to avoid any unwanted queries regarding perceived hypocrisy or incoherence.
The Rabat–Algiers Equation
Yet another level of intricacy in this regard is North Africa’s regional geopolitics. Both Morocco and Algeria enjoy warm ties with Pakistan. Rabat presents its plan as a sovereignty-based solution, stressing that the arrangement involves broad local autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. Algiers has long pushed for the Polisario Front’s referendum narrative, claiming that independence is the most natural and only logical conclusion the international community should be seeking for “the oppressed Sahrawis.”.
Through its abstention, Pakistan has signaled its fundamental reluctance to favor one party at the expense of the other. This posture corresponds to Pakistan’s tradition of a foreign-policy of nonalignment within the Muslim world. Pakistan has avoided taking sides in disputes among Muslims, from Gulf state rivals to North Africa to the broader Arab world. Unity among Muslims, Islamabad has long believed, is not solely a crucial strategic goal but also a moral one. As Pakistan sees it, a vote for one party would have escalated intraorganizational competition within the OIC and the African-Arab group as a whole. And this is something the country has energetically opposed for the past decades.
Strategic Autonomy in a Fragmented World
In an age of changing global power, Pakistan’s abstention reaffirms its strategic autonomy. The US was the sponsor of the resolution, and all major western and Gulf powers supported it. However, several countries, including Russia and China as well as Pakistan, abstained from voting. Not because they were anti-Moroccan, but because they felt the resolution pre-empted negotiations rather than fostering a balanced conversation.
The goal of Islamabad’s foreign policy nowadays is no longer to be loyal to a single bloc but to be pragmatic in a multipolar world. It strives to build constructive relationships with everyone, from Washington and Beijing to Riyadh, Rabat, and Algiers, whilst standing its ground on what it considers fundamental principles. This is precisely the ultimate reason behind Pakistan’s abstention on this UNSC vote on Western Sahara.
Beyond the Vote: Reaffirming Muslim Solidarity
Pakistan’s abstention should not be seen as a vote against Morocco’s aspirations or an indication of its dismissal of, or lack of commitment to, their long-standing bilateral friendship. It is, rather, the perfect blend of compassion for an old friend and the strategic reserve of principle. The Pakistani leadership continues to regard Morocco as an indispensable ally in the naturally resilient realms of education, art, and global cooperation. Both Morocco and Pakistan share a long-standing relationship and commitment to moderation, reform, and regional dialogue..
Yet the Pakistani leadership is dealing with caution in a scenario that calls for unity. Pakistan desires a future in which Kesh’s policies are not discordant but fraternal; it envisions a world in which Rabat and Algiers, two nations united only by religion and a host of cultural similarities, communicate in fraternal terms rather than partisan quarters, not as a retraction from an old ally but as a tipping force for a new direction.
In the end, Pakistan’s abstention was not a retraction from everyone but a declaration of its desire for constructive neutrality. From its inception, Islamabad has believed that Muslim nations should rise over regional animosities to fight for overall peace. For Pakistan, the Western Sahara resolution was not about choosing the opposing faction. Instead, it was an adhesion to its lesson: that Islamic sequestration will be sustained by respect and equality with everyone.
