If the Sahara talks are not facing a deadlock, then at least they have not maintained the same momentum they enjoyed two years ago. After the bet was on their nature and mechanisms to crystallize the concept of the political solution brokered by the United Nations, the stand now involves much ambiguity and threatens the principle of negotiations itself. A two-year period was not enough to start resolving a conflict that has lasted for more than three decades. But this conflict revealed a great deal of divergence in attitudes, particularly through the diverse legal and political readings of the concept of self-determination. Will it be in the form of self-rule ratified by a popular referendum in which the inhabitants who have Sahara origins, the pro-West, and those who belong to the Polisario Front participate? Or will it be in the form of a consultation that precedes the ratification of the choices of self-rule, the independence of the province, or its complete merging with Morocco? What goes beyond the interpretations made by every side according to its interests is the ongoing debate over the future of the negotiations, in light of the exchanged accusations vis-à-vis the side responsible for impeding them. Although all sides have openly announced their commitment to "serious and realistic" negotiations, opening new outlets to shift the attention from the core of the negotiations has become a de facto option. The International Envoy Christopher Ross will not be able –with him insisting on all parties in an unofficial closed meeting as he did in Vienna – to overstep this competition which was about to wipe out the features of the main road. A conflict of another kind is going on, one that is more akin to revengeful blows to the painful places and has nothing to do with the requirements and ethics of negotiations. Those verifying the accuracy of the death of the previous referendum plan are pushing toward unburying it. However, those who benefited from the duplication of the peaceful settlement through the political solution do not want any alternative to this approach, while the region is on the brink of a volcano that threatens to resume tension. Nothing implies that a miracle that would rescue the outstanding negotiations from collapse is imminent. There is only a tendency to play additional matches before the game kicks off. No referee, just like envoy Ross, has calculated the points scored on the sideline of the competition arena, because this means there is no game, but mere intentions to play the game outside the context of negotiations and aside from the censorship of a referee who calls for more patience and discipline. The problem does not lie in particular in the absence of an objective perception for a solution that is likely to survive and progress and fulfill desires. It rather lies in the extent of the parties' willingness to accept the end of a crisis which has only depleted the capacities of the North African region and brought about accumulated malice. Ross's role is not to find solutions for the minor problems, but to entice the parties by the power of the binding decisions and the reference of the international legitimacy which is addressing negotiations that are not engulfed by vagueness. Inasmuch as it seemed that the agreement over the principle of negotiations is impressive, logical and objective and allows the parties to create peace like a very complicated mosaic picture, hopes are shrinking about available chances that might not be repeated with the same specifications, i.e. with the background and slogan of a win-win solution. What justifies the hopes is that the Sahara conflict might have fulfilled its objectives which were imposed without any awareness of its present and future threats. But the other objective, which includes maintaining security, peace and coexistence, still hides behind trees that conceal the jungle. The irony is that the international decision-making capitals, like Paris, Madrid, Washington and even Moscow and China, are more likely to adopt the choice of solution, while the concerned region stands still in mined areas, within the framework of the choice of hope. This refutes the old formula to the effect that the Sahara conflict was found to remain a thorn that makes the feet bleed and prevent progress. The capitals that are mostly concerned with their traditional influence on the southern bank of the Mediterranean Sea have realized that there are security, social and economic dangers threatening the swaying balances. The capitals of North Africa have forgotten that their power lies in balanced solutions, not in dividing the crises among them. They are in an arm race to face possible enemies, while their biggest enemy is waging a war on backwardness by using the weapon of knowledge, democracy, human rights, and the safety of homeland.
