ALM: Do you think that Manhasset II is an absolute failure or a perspective which continues to be open for negotiations?
Khellihenna Ould Errachid: It is a difficult question because, in this type of problems, it is difficult to evaluate. This is quicksand. We can assess something at a certain instant and, later, it can move elsewhere. But surely holding talks about the heart of the problem, even if we are world’s apart, is positive.

ALM: Are we going to begin right away putting down milestones to discuss self-government or are we still going to stick to fundamental positions as we have seen today through Polisario statements?
KOE: Let us say that we are living the experience of getting used to each other. First, it is a language which is not common to that which we are familiar with. We had different positions and talking is positive, even if we do not agree, even if it is too much diverged sometimes. I think that, little by little, we are going to get used to each other. We are going to seek agreement if there is good faith.

ALM: Precisely, you do think that there is good faith today?
KOE: I would say that they are testing us. Morocco succeeded in this exam. Why? Simply because we are realistic. We are offering something innovative and we are willing to resolve this problem. This is not the case with Polisario and Algeria. They are still testing our will in this sense and I think that they will begin to understand that we are serious and that this is not a move without future.  The Sahara problem is mainly a psychological one.

ALM: Polisario has already begun to talk about the resource management in the Sahara and about local gouvernance. Do not you think that it is already discussing autonomy?
KOE: We can understand that. Yes, it is already a good thing. As I said, discussing the heart of the subject is good. But we did not speak only about this, we discussed fundamental questions: the implementation of Resolution 1754, principles of the positions of every party… On this plan, it is positive. Now, all parties should be ready to get out of their "dreams" which cannot be accomplished and become more realistic. This is how we can move forward. Polisario should understand that compromise is a courage affair and that, in life, we never get what we want. Therefore, we should be courageous to accept a solution, median for sure but honourable.
In this round, we talked sincerely, very clearly and we reached issued which were very hard to discuss in the past.

ALM: For instance?
KOE: All, self-determination, failures, past misunderstanding and extreme positions of parties, the great advances carried out by Morocco to make this proposal and we talked about the fact that Polisario does not change and does not understand some aspect of history.

ALM: Is it Polisario which does not change or is it Algeria which has an attitude about this conflict and thus does not develop?
KOE: Polisario does not evolve because first it is politico-military movement and this evolution is linked to Polisario’s internal situation as a dogmatic politico military movement. Concerning Algeria, there is also a psychological problem. However, I am optimistic in this sense because stakes with Algeria are high regarding the Maghreb, bilateral relations, and relations between peoples. There is therefore always light of hope that Algeria can put enough pressure on Polisario to lead it sign this historical compromise. Accordingly, negotiations have to go on, we have to better know each other and bring ourselves closer…this round was positive, but we all need, especially the other party, to make this important and historical decision mature.

ALM: As Corcas chairman, aren’t you a bit pained to discuss with people who are not autonomous?
KOE: I said this to them in one of my speeches. But the problem is not there, we are going to learn to get out, little by little, of these decision-making ghettoes if there is good faith. Therefore, we can only be optimistic because it is necessary. And let’s keep thinking that time will change people. I think that Algeria and Polisario are aware of the fact that something should be done to get out of this trap. I think also that one day, maybe it is near, we will be dealing with a partner who is able to react positively.

ALM: The Moroccan delegation is composed of three very active Sahrawis while Polisario refuses to talk to Sahrawi Unionists. Is this in the interest of Morocco?
KOE: This is the main proof that Morocco has changed. And this is good proof of Morocco’s goodwill. At the psychological level, this is very important. But things are so clear and we cannot disclaim that absolute majority of Sahrawis are not in line with Polisario.

ALM: How do you see this movement called "Khat Chahid" which claims more democracy and discusses representativeness of Polisario delegation in Manhasset?
KOE: It is a good evolution, if it takes sufficient power to push Polisario to make serious negotiations. I think that negotiation dynamism, power of Moroccan proposal, large change in Morocco, its approach, how it negotiates and the way it argues and confronts future is what produced change.

ALM: How can we qualify your attitude for the coming of this process?
KOE: I am optimistic; I think that a resolution is not impossible for the Sahara issue.