One statement does not usually impact foreign policy. Normal diplomacy brings about change more often, but then the ramifications are too large to ignore. Bolivia stopped recognising the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which cut off diplomatic ties after decades of political alignment.
The choice did not seem like a big deal on paper. It was called a sovereign evaluation, a review that changed as UN talks about Western Sahara changed. However, if you read between the lines of the diplomatic language, you could see that they were tired of the standoff.
Even people who love frozen battles might get tired of them. Diplomats take on duties that were made up in the past, often based on movements for solidarity or ideological ties that appeared morally clear at the time.
In a statement, Morocco’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Cooperation and Moroccan Expatriates, Nasser Bourita, said the decision was reached during a phone conversation with his Bolivian counterpart, Fernando Aramayo.
However, as time goes on, reality gets in the way. The talks are at a standstill, the refugees are still living in tents, and every year the same arguments happen with little progress.
Bolivia’s adjustment does not feel like giving up; it feels more like realising that symbols alone do not generally fix things. That is particularly crucial for Tanzania right now because it is trying to acquire a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and is under a lot of scrutiny. Having a high reputation is not the only thing that matters when running for this job. It indicates that they are willing to assist others in working out their differences that divide continents and challenge their patience.
In the Council chamber, being believable is more important than being consistent. Delegates should be able to listen, think on their feet, and get individuals from various sides to work together. Countries that have a stringent diplomatic attitude typically discover that being able to adjust is more important than how much power they have.
Tanzania has traditionally supported SADR because it was a prevalent idea in most of Africa at the time of liberation. Those choices were shaped by memories of the fight against colonialism and the unity of newly independent governments, which promised never to ignore problems of self-determination again.
That legacy is still very important. At the same time, diplomacy does not stay the same for very long. The African Union still sees SADR as a member, and the UN is still in charge of talks about Western Sahara. This means that African governments have to contend with institutional expectations that sometimes pull them in different directions.
It has become tougher to deal with those pressures. Some states have quietly stopped publicly acknowledging the situation but are still backing talks. Some people stick to their long-held ideas yet value mediation above conflict.
Bolivia seems to have taken a reasonable approach by backing UN talks instead of celebrating an ideological win. Dar es Salaam does not care if history should be forgotten. The challenge is whether policy can change without going against what is right.
People who want independence still say that the promise of self-determination cannot just go away over time. People who are politically and globally related to the Polisario Front still support the cause. Their representatives suggest that talks should leave that door open.
Their argument has both emotional and legal weight, especially in countries that were formed by the fight against colonialism. At the same time, more and more people agree with Morocco’s proposals for negotiated autonomy. They feel that decades without a final settlement call for a reasonable compromise. The Security Council talks about the file every year because neither side has really won.
In other words, there is still some agreement, but not all of it. Bolivia’s recalibration reveals that they know this is a risky situation. It did not end the quarrel or settle the argument right away. Instead, it placed the country closer to the centre of negotiations, where an agreement is possible.
For Tanzania, getting ready to sit at the Council table would involve facing the same truths. Countries that differ on almost everything else have to work together every day to be on the Security Council. Non-permanent members usually do well not because they win discussions, but because they create trust across lines.
Western Sahara puts that trust to the test. It might be harder to be a mediator if you do not modify your mind, especially when the conversations involve European allies, North African countries, and larger geopolitical interests. On the other hand, changing the manner in which you perform diplomacy could show that you are ready to put communication first without violating your word.
Some risks come with realignment, of course. Southern African partners that support SADR may interpret change as an indication that they are no longer supporting liberation.
If you want to deal with major regional actors like Algeria, you need to be very careful with diplomacy and make sure they feel protected. People in the country could also wonder if being pragmatic means giving up on their principles.
You cannot merely disregard these issues. However, there are not many options in foreign policy that do not cost anything. Not changing has implications, too, especially if the world keeps moving toward negotiated frameworks supported by the UN process.
Calmly, the economy also plays a role in these disagreements. Infrastructure partnerships, logistical corridors, renewable energy projects, and air travel networks are becoming more and more vital for diplomatic relations in Africa. When governments wish to bring in business and open up new markets, they often discover that being open in diplomacy opens new chances in ways they did not foresee.
That does not mean that morals should be based on economics. It indicates that ideas operate in a world where working together and being linked are becoming increasingly vital for power. Bolivia’s experience demonstrates a profound aspect of diplomacy.
Governments, like people, must eventually choose between being loyal to memory and being responsible for the present. You do not necessarily lose your originality when you change paths. It can show that you are becoming older.
Tanzania is now at a similar point in its history. Wanting a seat on the Security Council means you want to do more than speak about world problems; you want to help fix them. That ambition makes it challenging to figure out how to solve one of Africa’s oldest challenges while still being honest with friends on other continents.
Even if everyone followed Resolution 2797, the crisis in Western Sahara would not be fixed right away. It would not mean giving up the traditions of unity that improved Tanzania’s reputation around the world. If you present it appropriately, it could show that you are willing to deal with the problem where it truly is today, in the rooms where conversations are going on, instead of in ideological trenches.
In fact, diplomacy is not usually about making a choice between right and wrong. It is more about choosing the path that provides you with the best possibility of moving after being stuck for years. Bolivia thought it was worth the risk to move. If Tanzania makes the same choice, it might soon become one of the most closely followed diplomatic issues in Africa.