Washington’s long-standing practice of designating armed groups as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) has consistently been politicized, but a recent bipartisan push in the U.S. House of Representatives aims to elevate this absurdity by targeting the Frente Polisario, the recognized government of Western Sahara. This proposed legislation, introduced by Representatives Joe Wilson and Jimmy Panetta, seeks to classify a sovereign entity as a terrorist group, raising serious questions about the integrity and application of international law.

The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, commonly known as the Polisario Front, is widely recognized by the United Nations as the legitimate representative of the Western Saharan people. Morocco, a key U.S. ally, invaded Western Sahara in 1975 following its independence from Spain and currently occupies a significant portion of the territory, while the Polisario administers areas housing a substantial percentage of the Western Saharan population, including those in refugee camps in western Algeria.

The U.S. has increasingly deviated from its traditional application of FTO labels, which were historically reserved for irregular forces. Recent controversial designations include Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a major branch of that country’s armed forces, and Yemen’s Houthis, who function as the de facto government for a vast majority of the Yemeni population. Such classifications have frequently complicated humanitarian aid efforts and broadly implicated large segments of civilian populations.

This new congressional initiative to label the Polisario Front as a terrorist group marks a deeply problematic escalation. The Polisario is not merely an armed faction but the entire ruling body of a nation-state, recognized at various points by over 80 countries and holding full membership in the African Union. This move constitutes arguably the most extreme politicization of the FTO designation to date, undermining principles of sovereignty and legitimate self-determination.

Despite former President Trump’s formal recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, the Biden administration has allowed this stance to persist, subtly integrating Western Sahara into Morocco on U.S. government maps and federal agency reports. This shift, while officially maintaining support for a UN-led peace process, has effectively emboldened Moroccan assertiveness and complicated diplomatic efforts to resolve the longstanding dispute.

Crucially, throughout its 50-year struggle against Moroccan occupation forces, the Polisario Front has maintained an untarnished record regarding terrorism. They have formally ratified the Geneva Conventions and their protocols and are a party to the African Union’s Convention on Counter-Terrorism. Neither the United Nations nor any other credible international legal entity classifies the Polisario as a terrorist group, underscoring the baseless nature of the proposed designation.

Attempts by supporters of Morocco’s autocratic monarchy to link the Polisario — a democratic, secular, and moderately left-leaning liberation movement — with Islamist groups like Hezbollah or the Iranian government have been widely debunked. The U.S. State Department has found no operational ties, and former U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton, despite his strong stance against Iran, affirmed allegations of Iranian influence on the Polisario were groundless. Similarly, former Secretary of State James Baker praised the Polisario’s governance for its “degree of democracy, maintained a high literacy rate, and never resorted to terrorism.”

If this effort to classify the Polisario Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization succeeds, it would severely jeopardize the U.S.-backed United Nations peace process, as U.S. officials could no longer engage in negotiations with a designated “terrorist” party. The profound irony lies in Washington’s stated support for democratic, secular Arab nations, while effectively siding with a conservative, repressive monarchy against the very forces of democracy and self-determination it claims to champion. This blatant double standard highlights a willingness to manipulate legitimate concerns about terrorism to undermine fundamental international legal principles.