Western Sahara, Trump and the exposure of international law

By recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, Trump has revealed how conditional international law has become, writes Mohamed Elbaikam.

For decades, international relations were governed not only by written rules but also by a common claim.

United Nations Charterinternational courts and diplomatic language provided a normative framework that masked the pure exercise of force behind legal and moral discourse. Much of what the major powers did was negotiated quietly, behind closed doors, under the table.

US President Donald Trump He did not invent this reality. But he did something unprecedented: he revealed it.

Trump Administration’s 2020 Recognition of Moroccan sovereignty The Western Sahara issue was not just a controversial foreign policy decision. This was a moment of radical revelation. What had long been practiced in secret – transactional diplomacy overriding international law – was suddenly declared openly, unapologetically and in plain language.

Western Sahara is not an obscure territorial dispute. This is one of the last unsolved cases of decolonization recognized by the United Nations. In 1975, the International Court of Justice concluded that there was no link of territorial sovereignty that could undermine the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination. This right was later included in the UN peace process, which promised a referendum; this promise was never fulfilled.

For years, the international community maintained a careful balance: officially endorsing UN principles while unofficially condoning their suspension. Trump upset this balance. By tying the legal status of Western Sahara to an unrelated geopolitical agreement, the administration treated international law as a bargaining chip, not a constraint.

This was shocking not because it was completely new, but because it was no longer secret.

In this sense, Trump has functioned as an unfiltered mirror of the erosion of international law rather than its architect. His direct, transactional style, disdainful of multilateral norms, dismantled the diplomatic theater that maintained the illusion of a rules-based order. What was once done discreetly by the great powers is now done publicly.

This exposure carries a double meaning. On the negative side, it accelerates the collapse of legal norms. If sovereignty, self-determination and decolonization are openly tradable, then international law loses its binding character and becomes optional. The example of Western Sahara signals to the world that legal principles can only survive when they are compatible with power.

But there is also a paradoxical positive dimension. Trump’s approach forced a moment of clarity. It revealed that the international order was already fragile, already compromised, already selective. The problem didn’t start in 2020; It has now become undeniable.

Western Sahara reveals this fact with extraordinary clarity. For nearly 50 years, the people of the Sahara have suffered the consequences of the international system’s inability or unwillingness to enforce its rules. Refugee camps, political repression and long-term legal uncertainty are no coincidence; these are the structural consequences of a system that prioritizes stability over justice and power over principles.

The danger today is not Trump or any administration alone. What is exposed is left unrepaired. When grandiosity collapses but nothing takes its place, cynicism fills the void. Other conflicts (Ukraine, Palestine, Taiwan, Kashmir) are now interpreted through the same lens: “What does international law require?” not. but “Who has the power?”

The United States faces a choice as the founding architect of the post-World War II order. He may proceed down a path where the law is clearly governed by agreements, or he may realize that exposure creates liability. Once the curtain is drawn, returning to comfortable uncertainty is no longer an option.

Western Sahara is not excluded from this calculation. It is in a central location for him. The region stands as a living record of what happens when international law is indefinitely suspended. If rules-based order has any meaning in the 21st century, it cannot survive as performance alone. It should be applied even when it is inconvenient – especially then.

Trump revealed the truth of the system. The question now is whether this reality will lead to renewal or irreversible collapse.