اخبار المغرب – وطن نيوز
اخر اخبار المغرب اليوم – اخبار المغرب العاجلة
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-03-31 04:00:00
In an article published on March 25, 2026 on the “Middle East Forum” website, American analyst Michael Rubin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute and former official in the US Department of Defense, re-shed light on the file of the Tindouf camps, questioning the figures circulating regarding their population (40,000 compared to 173,000 according to Algeria’s claim), and criticizing the expansion of the concept of “refugee” outside the framework drawn up by the Geneva Convention of 1951, and recording the presence of restrictions on freedom of movement within these areas. The camps, with reference to practices that indicate the use of family ties as an indirect means of pressure, by keeping some family members inside the camps as a guarantee for the return of those who are allowed to leave temporarily, concluding that the continuation of this anomalous situation is no longer justified. What reinforces this proposition is that the Security Council itself, in its successive resolutions, from Resolution 2252 of 2015 to subsequent resolutions, up to the most recent resolution of 2025, continued to stress the necessity of counting camp residents and controlling their legal status. However, this requirement, as it is understood in public discourse, is often reduced to simply being a “population census,” which is an incorrect simplification from a legal standpoint. The census called for by the Security Council, according to the standards of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is not a numerical process, but rather a complete individual legal procedure, which aims to determine each person’s identity, origin, nationality, path of displacement, reasons for claiming asylum, and whether he actually meets the condition of “justified fear of persecution,” and then determine his future choice: return, integration, or resettlement. Because asylum in international law is not granted to an unknown group, but rather to individuals whose case is precisely proven. In this context, the distinction between collective and individual approaches is crucial. The basis in international law is what is known as “Individual determination of refugee status,” which is a mandatory legal process based on studying each case individually. In contrast, there is a limited exception known as “prima facie refugee status,” which is intended to grant refugee status en masse and on a prima facie basis in cases of major mass displacement. However, this method remains, by its nature, temporary, and cannot replace final individual determination. Therefore, continuing to deal with the residents of the Tindouf camps according to a permanent collective logic, without going through individual determination, is a clear departure from the legal rule. Based on this clarification, it becomes clear that the situation in Tindouf does not merely pose a technical problem, but rather reveals a structural flaw. Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention of 1951 stipulates that a refugee is every person who is outside his country due to a well-justified fear of persecution, and who cannot or does not want to return because of that fear. This is a definition based on a precise individual basis that does not accept generalization or collective extension outside its specific legal conditions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, through its procedural guides (Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (1979) and Registration Guidelines (UNHCR)), has enshrined the principle of individual determination of refugee status, as a basic rule in the international protection system, where each case is evaluated individually, which is translated in practice through individual registration that enables the identity and legal status of each person to be controlled, and does not accept being satisfied with permanent group treatment outside its temporary framework. This definition is based on two crucial conditions: the presence of fear, and the inability to return. However, the reality in Tindouf reveals a clear contradiction with these two conditions, as the door to return to Morocco remained open without interruption, not only to civilians, but even to prominent leaders and founders of the Polisario Front, who returned and integrated within state institutions, and even held very important positions within them. This data demolishes, in depth, the hypothesis of “fear that prevents return,” and confirms that the problem is not related to persecution, but rather to the absence of freedom of choice. Hence the first clear legal violation related to restricting freedom of movement. Article 26 of the 1951 Convention clearly states that a refugee has “the right to choose his place of residence and to move freely within the territory of the host state.” But the reality inside the Tindouf camps reflects a different situation, where movement is subject to restrictions and licenses, and movement becomes a conditional privilege instead of a guaranteed right. The matter does not stop at simply requiring permission or licensing, but also extends to the confiscation of Algerian passports from their Sahrawi holders upon entering Algerian territory, with their detention for potentially long periods before they are retrieved. International human rights organizations have documented practices related to confiscating or restricting the use of passports when entering or leaving Algerian territory, which leads, in multiple cases, to disrupting the rights related to movement and residence outside the country. This phenomenon is not limited to isolated individual cases, but rather reflects a pattern of restrictions that touch the essence of freedom of movement, and directly affect the legal and social status of the people concerned. Human rights bodies also recommended enabling camp residents to obtain and use their travel documents without obstruction. When freedom of movement is restricted in this way, and the document itself turns into a tool for control and control, we are not facing a system of protection, but rather facing a situation that amounts, in its legal and practical effects, to actual detention. These restrictions do not stop at the borders of the administrative organization, but rather extend to establish indirect pressure mechanisms that affect the freedom of individual decision, and make leaving the camp a risk with a humanitarian and social cost, deepening the coercive nature of the existing situation. The second violation affects the essence of the legal capacity itself, and is represented by the absence of individual registration. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stressed the need for refugees to be registered on an individual basis, which the Security Council reaffirmed in its resolutions, from Resolution 2252 of 2015 to Resolution 2602 of 2021, Resolution 2756 of 2024, and then the most recent resolution of 2025. However, to date there is no comprehensive and transparent individual census of the population of the Tindouf camps. This means, in practice, that the legal identity of the population is not established, and that the status of “refugee” is not determined according to the obligatory individual path, but rather is dealt with according to a collective logic extending beyond its temporary legal borders. The picture becomes clearer when we turn to the data of the daily management of these camps. This population is effectively treated as refugees, and benefits from a complete international support system. It is subject to the programs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, benefits from World Food Program assistance, and relief operations are funded with millions of euros annually from donors, led by the European Union. In assessing the humanitarian situation, serious questions are raised about the accuracy of the announced figures regarding the population of the Tindouf camps, with strong indications of their inflation, which does not remain merely a statistical problem, but rather extends to raise a real legal issue, given its direct impact on the volume and management of humanitarian aid, and on the principle of transparency that is supposed to frame the international protection system. Here a fundamental paradox becomes clear, as the privileges of the “refugee” status are fully granted, while its legal conditions are not fulfilled as required by the framework regulating it. The law does not recognize vague collective entities, but rather is based on precise individual definition of identity and status. The ambiguity is not limited to numbers, but extends to identity and nationality. In the absence of individual registration, and with data indicating that a large number of people within this population belong to other nationalities, determining who truly is a “refugee” becomes an unresolved issue. When precise standards are absent, the entire system loses its legal basis and turns into a situation based on assumption rather than proof. The third violation relates to Algeria’s responsibility as a host country. Article 35 of the 1951 Convention obliges states to cooperate with the Commission and enable it to monitor the implementation of the agreement. Article 34 also stipulates the obligation of states to facilitate the integration and naturalization of refugees “as much as possible.” However, the reality in Tindouf is moving in a completely different direction, as there is no individual registration, and there are no mechanisms for integration or naturalization, with the management of the camps actually being assigned to the Polisario Front. This does not absolve Algeria from responsibility, because international law recognizes the principle of state responsibility for actions occurring within its territory, as enshrined in the rules of international responsibility of states, and it cannot transfer this responsibility to a non-governmental party. It is necessary to remember here a basic principle in international refugee law: refugee status is not a permanent status, but rather a temporary status by nature. The international protection system is based on what is known as the “three durable solutions”: voluntary return, local integration, or resettlement. However, what is happening in the Tindouf camps departs from this logic, as a supposedly transitional situation has turned into a permanent situation that has extended for decades, without actually activating these solutions. In parallel, these camps continue to attract large financial flows, estimated at millions of euros annually, whether through the European Union or through United Nations programmes. These resources, which were supposed to be employed within the framework of temporary protection and on the horizon of permanent solutions, are being spent in the context of a static situation, based on keeping the population in a state of almost total dependence on aid. Then there is another dimension that reveals the nature of this situation, which is the diversion of humanitarian aid. Reports issued by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in an investigation completed in 2007, and whose conclusions were later confirmed in the European Parliament in 2015, revealed the existence of a system to transfer part of the humanitarian aid directed to the Tindouf camps, in a context mainly linked to the absence of an accurate population census, which opens the way for structural imbalances in the management of these resources. The situation of minors inside these camps also raises a serious human rights problem, in light of repeated data indicating that children and adolescents are subjected to activities of a military nature within the camps’ vicinity. Such practices contradict international obligations, especially the 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the involvement of children in military activities, and present a clear deviation from the original function of refugee camps as spaces of protection and care, not areas of military framing. Together, these elements lead to a clear conclusion, which is that the current situation in the Tindouf camps is not consistent with the legal conditions on which the international asylum system is based, as enshrined in the 1951 Convention. In the absence of any accurate individual census, and the failure to move from the situation of temporary collective recognition to the path of individual legal determination, with the accompanying deficiency in guaranteeing basic rights, an anomalous situation is established that is based on the logic of exception instead of inclusion within the regulating legal rules. Accordingly, we are faced with an unambiguous situation, where the possibility of returning to Morocco remains virtually available, and the path of integration finds its translation into reality through those who return and become involved in state institutions. On the other hand, an entire population continues to be kept inside closed camps, in a state of almost complete dependence on aid, without a precise legal settlement of its status on an individual basis. In light of these facts, Algeria’s legal responsibility is determined directly and clearly, as the country that exercises sovereignty over the territory in which these camps are located. Under the Geneva Convention of 1951, in particular Article 26 on freedom of movement, Article 35 which obliges the state to cooperate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits arbitrary detention, Algeria remains obligated to ensure that the persons concerned enjoy their full rights. However, the continuation of a situation characterized by restricted movement and the absence of individual determination of legal status, while entrusting the management of the camps to an armed organization, constitutes a clear violation of these obligations and cannot be justified. International law does not permit evading responsibility by delegating it, nor does it accept the establishment of exceptional situations outside its framework, which is what makes this situation rise, in its nature and effects, to convincing mass detention, the full legal consequences of which Algeria bears and exposes it to accountability under the rules of international law. * Professor of Political Science at Cadi Ayyad University – Director of the National Center for Studies and Research on the Sahara
