Was the mass influx into Ceuta politically orchestrated or the result of its own momentum? Two experts assess Morocco’s role and explain which factors actually played a role
For a long time, the Moroccan government has been silent. Only on Sunday, Rachid El Khalfi, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, commented on the influx of tens of thousands of migrants into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, which is now almost over. He blamed the “malicious misuse” of social networks, misleading information and misinterpretations of a ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court. At the same time, Rabat assured Spain of its full cooperation and added that the events were not desired by the Kingdom of Morocco.
However, in Spain, doubts about Morocco’s role were raised from the start. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez spoke of an “attack on our territorial sovereignty.” Videos showed Moroccan security forces failing to stop the mass influx. At the same time, numerous explanations were offered – from Spain’s recent rapprochement with Algeria to speculation about US influence. However, there is currently no credible evidence for the latter.
WARNING AGAINST SIMPLE EXPLANATIONS
Therefore, the two experts interviewed by DW urge caution. They agree that simple explanations are not enough. However, there are differences in the assessment of Morocco’s responsibility.
“I believe that today we have a significantly different situation than in 2021,” Isabelle Werenfels, a Maghreb expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), told DW in an interview. At the time, Morocco had a clear foreign policy interest in putting pressure on Spain in the dispute over Western Sahara. Today, in the event of a deliberately orchestrated migration movement, Rabat would have “a lot to lose – above all, credibility and international investment.”
Migration researcher Jochen Oltmer from Osnabrück University also warned against jumping to conclusions in an interview with DW. “It’s important to remember that many different interests are coming together here,” he said. Ceuta’s unique situation as a European enclave on African soil, decades of migration patterns, social networks and the hopes of many people for a better life form the backdrop to these events.
While Werenfels mainly emphasizes the political costs for Rabat, Oltmer formulates the responsibility of the Moroccan authorities much more harshly. “Such a border crossing would never have happened if the Moroccan side had not at least actively turned a blind eye,” he says. Without this behavior, a border storm of this magnitude would have been hard to imagine.
Wernerfels does not disagree with this assessment. She too considers it possible that Morocco wanted to send a political signal – for example, against the backdrop of Spain’s recent rapprochement with Algeria and the decision to grant Spanish citizenship to all Western Sahara residents born before September 1977. “But there is a considerable difference between a political signal and an orchestrated migration movement on this scale,” she points out. That Rabat planned the latter seems “not very plausible,” but not impossible. However, she emphasizes that the overall information situation remains extremely unclear.
THE ISSUE OF RESPONSIBILITY
Oltmer, on the other hand, argues that there is considerable evidence to suggest that Morocco was pursuing its own political interests. For years, the country has seen itself as an indispensable partner of Europe in migration policy and has repeatedly stressed how dependent the European Union is on cooperation. At the same time, the conflict over Western Sahara and the rivalry with Algeria play an important role. Therefore, he “ultimately cannot imagine that the recent events would have been possible without a specific interest on the Moroccan side.”
It is at this point that Werenfels advocates a more nuanced perspective. She suspects that Morocco may have wanted to send a signal. However, this may have had the opposite effect. It is difficult to imagine that Morocco would want to risk a lasting rift with Spain and the EU.
This is even more true considering that Morocco, along with Spain and Portugal, is hosting the FIFA World Cup and is also heavily dependent on gas supplies from Spain. In 2025, a quarter of Spain’s gas exports went to Morocco. Even if Morocco wanted to send a signal, that doesn’t automatically mean it deliberately organized a migration movement of this magnitude. The political and economic risks would be enormous, they say.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ACTIVITY FROM OTHER STATES
Both experts see no credible evidence that other states were behind the events. Werenfels considers it possible that governments or political actors may have tried to exploit the opportunity for their own political interests and acted as amplifiers of the events.
In her assessment, it is also unclear why the dynamic developed so quickly. Many suggest that news of a supposedly open border spread very quickly and many young Moroccans spontaneously set off for Ceuta. It is also possible that individual security forces simply did not intervene in the face of this dynamic. However, this cannot yet be proven.
“IT’S ABOUT HOPE AND EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE”
Regarding the actual causes of migration, both researchers ultimately draw almost the same conclusions. “It’s about hope and expectations for the future,” says Oltmer. Morocco has been a country of emigration for decades, and close family and friend networks in Europe make it easier for many people to take the step.
Wernfels also highlights the social and economic conditions. While Morocco has made progress in recent years, many young people have barely benefited from it. There are significant gaps, especially in education and healthcare. The lack of opportunities is therefore a major reason why many are willing to take significant risks.
Although the two experts sometimes assess Morocco’s role in this specific case differently, they agree on one point: The border raid in Ceuta cannot be explained by a single political decision or a single conspiracy theory. Only the interplay of geopolitical tensions, migration policy interests, and the often uncertain life prospects of many young people makes it understandable why events could reach this scale. (D.W.)