“Main stakeholder”: the word Le360 added to the UN resolution
Nadine Rochat — Genève, Suisse — 2026-10-07
Method note. We separate three things: what the OFFICIAL TEXT says, what the press REPORTS, and what WE THINK of it. The official text is public, it is quoted word for word below, and anyone can open it and contradict us.
On 4 October 2026 at 15h30, Le360 published an attack on the Algerian president's televised interview of 3 October. Signed Mohammed Ould Boah.
It contains a sentence that is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. Here it is:
“[…] resolution 2797 of 31 October 2025 clearly designated Algeria as the main stakeholder in the Sahara conflict.”
Three paragraphs earlier, the newspaper accuses the Algerian president of having “trotted out a heavy untruth” and “falsified the content” of that resolution.
So we did the only thing that can settle the question: we opened the resolution.
What the text says, word for word
The resolution 2797 (2025), symbol S/RES/2797 (2025), adopted at the 10030th meeting of the Security Council on 31 October 2025, is public. Here is the passage of the preamble in which Algeria appears:
“Fully supporting the efforts being made by the Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, to implement the Council's resolutions and advance the political process, including through continued consultations the Personal Envoy is conducting with Morocco, the Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania in order to build on the progress made […]”
That is what the text says — and we will write it out in full, including what it concedes:
1. Algeria IS named. The newspaper is right on that one point, and we will not dispute it: anyone who wrote that “the resolution does not mention Algeria” would be writing an untruth. It is there.
2. But it is there in a list of FOUR. The Personal Envoy conducts his consultations with Morocco, the Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania. Four interlocutors, not one.
3. And Le360 forgot the fourth. Mauritania appears in the same sentence, at the same rank, with the same grammar. No one in Rabat argues that Mauritania is the “main stakeholder” in the Western Sahara conflict. Consequently, the sentence in the text cannot say what Le360 makes it say: if it designated Algeria as main, it would designate Mauritania as main too.
4. The word “main” does not exist in the resolution. Neither “main”, nor “principal”, nor “foremost”, nor any degree, any hierarchy, any ranking among the four. We looked. It is not there.
5. The phrase “stakeholder” does not exist there either. The text speaks of “the Personal Envoy” conducting consultations, and it speaks, in its decision paragraphs, of “the parties” — without ever listing them in those paragraphs. That is a legal distinction, not a nuance of style.
The proof, in two columns
Here are the two texts, side by side. The first is public, free, and open to anyone. The second is a press article.
| What Le360 writes, on 4 October 2026 | What resolution 2797 (2025) says, word for word |
|---|---|
| “resolution 2797 of 31 October 2025 clearly designated Algeria as the main stakeholder in the Sahara conflict” | “[…] the consultations the Personal Envoy is conducting with Morocco, the Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania” |
| (no mention of Mauritania) | “…with Morocco, the Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania” |
| “main stakeholder” | The word “main”: absent. The phrase “stakeholder”: absent. The text speaks of “the parties” in its decision paragraphs, without ever listing them |
The reader who opens the resolution — and it is open to all — sees the two columns. He does not need to believe us.
The real test, and it is simple
The resolution does not say what Le360 makes it say. And there is a very simple way to check: the text is online, free of charge, on the official United Nations documents website.
We give the address, so that everyone can judge: https://docs.un.org/fr/S/RES/2797(2025)
Here, in full, are the six decision paragraphs — what the Council actually decides:
| # | What the Security Council decides |
|---|---|
| 1 | Extend the MINURSO mandate until 31 October 2026 |
| 2 | Support the negotiations “on the basis of the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco” — and “would welcome any constructive suggestion the parties might make in response to the autonomy plan” |
| 3 | Request the parties to participate “without preconditions”, for a solution “that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara”, and “considers that a genuine autonomy COULD represent one of the most feasible solutions” |
| 4 | Invite Member States to provide their assistance and support to those negotiations |
| 5 | Request from the Secretary-General a strategic review of the future MINURSO mandate within six months, “taking into account the outcome of the negotiations” |
| 6 | Decide to remain seized of the matter |
Twice, the text writes “could”. Never “is”. Never “the only one”.
And paragraph 2 explicitly opens the door to “any constructive suggestion” — which, by definition, means that suggestions other than the Moroccan plan may be examined.
What Le360 does not say either
The mandate it renews has a name, and that name is a whole word.
MINURSO stands for: United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.
The word “referendum” is in the title of the mission that the resolution extends. That is not an interpretation: it is the official name of the mission, created by resolution 690 of 29 April 1991.
**Le360 writes that Tebboune “falsified the content” of the resolution while recalling that he respects it stricto sensu. It does not note that this resolution extends, until 31 October 2026, a mission whose name means “referendum”.**
And the official record of the meeting adds two things that Le360 does not say:
- Three of the fifteen Council members refused to vote for this text — China, Pakistan and Russia abstained. It is therefore not the “consensus” that is being described.
- And in that same meeting, the fifteen delegations call the mission by its official name: United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Pakistan: all of them. And the United Kingdom, a permanent member that voted in favour, states before the Council that the text “provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara” and that “this is the beginning of the process, not the end”.
What we concede, because it is our rule
A dossier that concedes nothing is worth nothing.
- Algeria is indeed named in the preamble. We write it here so that no one accuses us of having hidden it. It is named as an interlocutor consulted, alongside Morocco, the Polisario Front and Mauritania.
- The Moroccan autonomy plan is indeed cited as the basis of the discussions. It is written in paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3. We do not deny it.
- The word “referendum” does NOT appear in the six decision paragraphs. It appears in the title of MINURSO and in the 1991 Settlement Plan. The two texts are never to be confused — and we write that too because it is true.
And the irony, to finish
Le360 accuses a head of State of having falsified a United Nations document.
And to demonstrate it, it adds to the document two words that are not there — “main stakeholder” — and forgets a country that is.
We have no opinion to add. We opened the text, we copied it out, and we gave the address so that you could open it too.
The reader who verifies proves us right. That is all we ask.
Sources: United Nations Security Council, resolution 2797 (2025), adopted at the 10030th meeting on 31 October 2025, symbol S/RES/2797 (2025) — full public text: https://docs.un.org/fr/S/RES/2797(2025). — Security Council, resolution 690 of 29 April 1991, creating MINURSO. — Report of the Secretary-General of 18 June 1990, Proposals and Settlement Plan (referendum scheduled for January 1992, choice between independence and integration with Morocco). — Le360, “In his new periodic rambling, Tebboune prepares Algerians to mourn the Moroccan Sahara”, Mohammed Ould Boah, 4 October 2026, 15h30. — La Nouvelle Tribune, “The Security Council opens its sequence on the Sahara”, 7 October 2026 (meetings of 7 and 8 October, mandate expiring on 31 October, United States as penholder). — United Nations Security Council, official record of the 10030th meeting (S/PV.10030), 31 October 2025: 11 votes in favour, 0 against, 3 abstentions (China, Pakistan, Russian Federation); explanation of vote by the United Kingdom (“not the end”, self-determination); quotations from the English version of the record. — UN Project, voting record for resolution 2797 (2025).