The annual High Level Meeting (RAN) between Spain and Morocco should be a standing tradition. This week in Rabat marked a milestone: after eight years without a gathering, the two sides came together for a session that signals renewed engagement. Morocco is a key neighbor to the south, a major trading partner, and a significant investor for Spain. It hosts five Cervantes Institutes and ten secondary schools, reflecting cultural and educational ties. The relationship also involves security interests, including irregular migration, narcotics, and terrorism. At the same time, there are enduring disagreements about Ceuta and Melilla, the Alhucemas and Vélez de la Gomera rocks, the Chafarinas Islands, and the delimitation of waters in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic relative to the Canary Islands. The Sahara issue remained a point of divergence until the current government in Madrid shifted its stance.
The Rabat meeting achieved outcomes, but some view them as staged rather than a decisive breakthrough. It strengthened bilateral relations through a broad set of agreements that are expected to benefit citizens of both nations. The idea is that mutual gains for Moroccans translate into benefits for Spaniards and vice versa. Yet many agreements were pre-prepared, with the session often serving to present a unified public-facing front rather than to resolve deep-seated disputes.
There are three reasons why some see the outcome as not fully satisfactory.
First, there is a price attached to the RAN’s arrangements. Madrid softened its position on the Sahara dispute, aligning with Rabat’s view that Morocco’s autonomy proposal is the most serious, realistic, and credible way to resolve the conflict. While this stance may appear practical, it risks straying from international legality and could strain ties with Algeria, amid broader Maghreb power dynamics. Critics argue that, in hindsight, relying on this framework may undermine long-standing UN mechanisms and complicate regional diplomacy. The question remains whether the government should have pressed Polisario for consent before sealing the shift in policy.
Second, the policy reversal left broad parliamentary support in question. The shift drew backing mainly from the ruling party, with no clear consensus across the coalition or opposition. Some members of the parliament voiced doubts about such unilateral moves in foreign policy. The government has yet to present a persuasive case that bridges competing viewpoints within the legislature.
Third, the symbolism of leadership was highlighted. After eight years of postponement, King Mohammed VI’s public schedule remained active abroad, and his absence from Rabat during the visit sparked discussion. In Morocco, foreign policy and key safety issues are traditionally centralized in the monarchy, but the session could have benefited from direct high-level access to both leaderships. Observers note that closer, more intimate consultations often reveal the true state of bilateral ties, beyond ceremonial theatre.
Overall, the Rabat meeting is viewed as a pragmatic step forward. It reaffirms the bilateral commitment and creates a framework for ongoing cooperation across multiple sectors, even as it leaves important questions unresolved. The enduring aim is to maintain a constructive dialogue that serves regional stability and the mutual interests of both countries. [Citation: Regional diplomatic commentary, expert analysis, attribution pending].