Fallacies and Ideological Arguments in Ammar Bendjama’s Speech at the UN Security Council’s Meeting for the Adoption of Resolution 2797 (2025) on the Moroccan Sahara Dispute: A Synergy of Critical Discourse Studies and Pragma-dialectical Theory

Abstract

This paper analyzes and evaluates the argumentative discourse of Ammar Bendjama, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations, during his speech at the United Nations Security Council’s meeting for the adoption of Resolution 2797 (2025) concerning the Moroccan Sahara dispute. Using a synergy of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and Pragma-dialectical Theory, the study examines how fallacies in argumentative discourse stem from Ammar Bendjama’s ideopolitical background, the antagonist, which distorts reasonable and effective argumentation as both a process and a practice. It argues that, instead of providing a constructive contribution to resolving the dispute, Ammar Bendjama’s argumentation represents a derailment of strategic maneuvering. The paper identifies multiple fallacies, including the red herring fallacy, the violation of the standpoint and relevance rules of ideal critical discussion’s ten commandments, and the use of ethos to amplify Algeria’s egocentric political narrative. In addition to pathos, which manipulates the audience’s mental models through an appeal to emotions, Ammar Bendjama’s reliance on ideological arguments structured around empty and floating signifiers, such as ‘decolonization,’ leads to deep disagreement and renders a meaningful exchange impossible. Moreover, the speaker’s contribution flouts Grice’s Cooperative Principle, especially the Maxims of Quantity and Quality, in addition to the sincerity condition of his speech act of argumentation. His contribution to the vote on Resolution 2797 was more destructive than constructive, further obstructing progress towards a resolution. Bendjama commits the appeal to authority fallacy by invoking Woodrow Wilson’s statement on self-determination, implying that his authority on the matter legitimizes the argument. Additionally, his argument is further weakened by the begging the question fallacy, assuming the truth of the point he seeks to prove when he speaks about ‘resistance,’ without providing evidence to support this claim, misleading the audience by promoting a conspiratorial inference. Ultimately, this research is part of a broader and ambitious doctoral thesis about disinformation discourse and deceptive narratives in Algerian electronic news stories on the Moroccan Sahara issue. The study is situated within the transdisciplinary school of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and calls for further research into the role of disinformation and propaganda in international discourse, particularly in the context of the Moroccan Sahara issue, emphasizing the power of words, language, and semiotics as the foundation of any discourse involving conflict and controversy.