Whenever an event involving Morocco emerges, contradictions in Algeria’s political and media discourse quickly come to the surface, particularly when it comes to principles that Algiers presents as part of the legacy of its “revolution,” including claims of defending rights and insisting that “historical rights do not expire with time.”
Yet these slogans repeatedly appear unable to withstand scrutiny when Morocco is involved. Rather than applying the same standards consistently, the language and concepts often shift, leaving issues concerning Morocco subject to an entirely different perspective. This has been particularly evident in Algerian media coverage of the two Moroccan cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which remain under Spanish control.
During the latest migration developments involving Ceuta, Algerian media outlets, both official and unofficial, chose to describe Ceuta and Melilla simply as “Spanish cities,” without referring to their disputed status or noting that Morocco continues to claim the two territories under Spanish control, as many international media outlets have done.
In this context, several international reports have recently noted that Morocco has not changed its position on the two cities and does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over them. Academic studies and international references also continue to describe Ceuta and Melilla as the subject of a territorial dispute between Morocco and Spain, despite Spain’s effective administration of the two cities.
At the very least, one might have expected Algerian media, given the slogans repeatedly invoked by Algiers about “historical rights” and opposition to “occupation,” to acknowledge this particular status and mention Morocco’s claim to the two cities, rather than fully adopting the Spanish narrative and presenting their legal and political status as settled and beyond dispute.
The contradiction becomes even more apparent when previous Arab and Islamic positions on the two cities are taken into account. Arab positions have described Ceuta and Melilla as Moroccan cities under Spanish control. Algeria’s media narrative on the issue therefore differs not only from Morocco’s position, but also from positions expressed elsewhere in the Arab world.
Morocco does not expect Algeria to defend its claims to Ceuta and Melilla, nor has Rabat sought support from Algiers or any other party on the issue. Nevertheless, the way Algeria addresses the matter raises, in the view of many observers, questions about the consistency of its approach to issues involving Morocco.
The contradiction does not stop at Ceuta and Melilla. It is even more evident in the Western Sahara dispute, where Algeria is among the main supporters of the Polisario Front and its separatist claims, while Rabat maintains that the territory is Moroccan and proposes autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty as a solution to the dispute.
Algeria also appears to be the only Arab state to adopt such a position on Western Sahara, in contrast with the broader Arab trend of supporting Morocco’s territorial integrity, including through the opening of consulates in Morocco’s southern provinces and official expressions of support for Rabat’s position.
If Algeria justifies its position against Morocco in the Western Sahara dispute by portraying Morocco as an “occupying” power, despite Morocco’s historical ties between the territory and successive Moroccan dynasties, the same language of “occupation” is notably absent from Algerian discourse when it comes to Ceuta and Melilla, despite the stark “historical and geographical” evidence confirming the two cities’ belonging to Morocco.
Beyond the political dispute between Rabat and Algiers, the issue ultimately raises the question of double standards. A principle presented as fundamental when it serves the Algerian narrative can become secondary - or simply disappear - when the issue concerns Morocco.
The question, therefore, is not whether Morocco expects Algeria to support its position on Ceuta and Melilla. It does not. Rather, it is whether the slogans Algeria invokes about defending the oppressed, protecting rights and respecting history are applied as consistent principles, or whether they become political and media tools that change according to the identity of the party involved.
