The latest UK government travel advisory, as outlined in a recent article by The Independent, reveals a stunning and politically charged inconsistency. While the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) warns against travel to certain areas of Western Sahara, it maintains no similar caution for Morocco—despite both renewed armed conflict and mounting domestic unrest.
This contradiction is not a technical oversight. It is a clear case of political sanitization, where strategic alliances are prioritized over public transparency and international law.
Whitewashing an Occupation
The FCDO’s advisory labels parts of Western Sahara as “Moroccan-controlled,” an intentionally vague term that skirts the truth: these areas are occupied by Morocco. No country in the world, including the UK, recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. In fact, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations, and the European Court of Justice have all affirmed the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination and the illegality of Moroccan claims.
To avoid calling the occupation what it is—an occupation—is to provide de facto political cover for Morocco’s continued military presence and settlement expansion in violation of international law.
Ignoring the Resumed War
Since the collapse of the ceasefire in November 2020, hostilities between the Polisario Front and Moroccan forces have resumed. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) has repeatedly declared that war is ongoing, particularly near the Berm—the militarized wall that bisects the occupied territories from areas under Sahrawi control.
Yet, the UK has not updated its travel advisory to reflect this fundamental shift. Travelers are warned about general risks in certain desert zones, but the advisory does not acknowledge that an armed conflict has resumed—a fact with direct relevance to the safety and political awareness of foreign nationals.
Turning a Blind Eye to Protests and Repression
Perhaps more troubling is the FCDO’s depiction of Morocco itself as safe and stable. This is a gross misrepresentation.
In the past year alone, Morocco has witnessed massive waves of protest, sparked by skyrocketing prices, corruption, and decades of political repression. From Casablanca to the Rif mountains, tens of thousands have taken to the streets. Security forces have responded with predictable force: arbitrary arrests, the targeting of journalists, and the continued imprisonment of Hirak al-Rif leaders, whose movement emerged in 2016 to demand economic justice and political dignity.
Yet none of this is reflected in the UK’s travel advisory. While Western Sahara is painted as unstable and unsafe, the occupying power is treated as a calm and welcoming destination.
Colonial Logic, Modern Politics
This inconsistency is not new. Travel advisories often reflect the geopolitical preferences of their issuing governments. But this particular case is egregious.
By singling out Western Sahara as dangerous while shielding Morocco from scrutiny, the UK government perpetuates a colonial-era double standard: “recognized” states, even when repressive and unstable, are granted legitimacy and sanitized reputations. Non-state entities fighting for liberation, like the Sahrawi Republic, are portrayed as inherently risky—even when they operate under international law and multilateral recognition.
A Tool of Policy, Not Safety
Travel advisories are not neutral. They are instruments of state policy. In this case, they function to undermine the legitimacy of the Sahrawi struggle, protect the image of the Moroccan regime, and avoid political friction with an ally.
The British public deserves better. So do the peoples of Western Sahara and the Rif, whose suffering is being erased by silence and strategic euphemism.
If the UK government is truly committed to upholding human rights, international law, and public safety, it must stop manipulating reality for political comfort. It must speak the truth about occupation, war, and repression—even when it’s inconvenient.
