Either Algeria is empty-minded, save of humanitarian impulses, which would explain why it would accept to host some of Gaddafi's children and their families; or it wishes to hold pressure cards with which to negotiate the future of its relations with the new Libyan regime. In either case, the issue would not have taken on such great importance had not relations between the two neighboring countries been moving in the wrong direction, amidst mutually exchanged reproach. In effect, the period preceding the collapse of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime is supposed to have been put behind us, whether for the Libyans, who yearn to open a new chapter of their revolution, which is in the process of turning into a state, or for the neighboring countries most affected by what is taking place on the Libyan scene. Indeed, the collapse of any regime means an end to its policies, and there is no need to build on this to revive its phases and repercussions, except on the basis of taking advantage of blunders. Moreover, the Libyan Revolution does not need enemies, but rather friends and allies who would walk alongside it in taking the first steps until the features of the road become clear. Indeed, Libya's neighbors, and in particular Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, remain concerned with removing any landmines that could be planted unbeknownst to everyone. And it does not seem that Algeria, which is known as the country of the revolution, has any interest in creating a crisis in its relations with the new Libya. Indeed, it too has in the past complained of the fallen regime creating numerous problems for it, as it also suffered from its impulsive behavior, not subject to the logic of friendships and enmities. There have been indications of some disparity in stances on the struggle against Colonel Gaddafi's regime, the most prominent being that Algeria, which is very sensitive to anything that points to the violence and extremism of Islamists, cannot tolerate the presence of groups that enjoy the support of a neighboring country, even if the matter is little more than a temporary alliance. The fact is that the Libyan revolution has in turn found itself being very strict about characterizing who supports the revolution and who voices reservations towards it, which explains how some signs of the crisis that had its seeds slipped under the carpet are now suddenly erupting in the form of a crisis of caution and lack of trust. From within the natural synonym of the notion of revolution – i.e. overall change and the desire to renew such change, so as for its local dimension to reflect at the regional level – emerge crucial problems related to the strategic space which is supposed to have connected the coast towards the establishment of a strong and integrated Maghreb Union. Indeed, nothing can change the geography of Libya or Algeria, but political will can turn the hillocks of disputes into mounds of understanding. And the situation which the region of North Africa finds itself in does not seem prepared to add new burdens to the pileup of existing contradictions. This is precisely where the wager on revolution begins. Indeed, the necessity of avoiding the descent into the pitfalls of revenge and of surrendering to feelings of anger has been stressed numerous times, and calls have been made for turning to an independent judiciary that would ensure fair trials. And there is no doubt that the preeminence of the phase of building, unifying ranks, and entrenching security and stability is of the utmost importance, over and above the many conflicts which time alone can ensure to fade away, since the fall of the head of the regime has become reality. Moreover, neighboring countries bear the responsibility of respecting the will of the Libyan people. Perhaps the fast rate at which the procedures of recognizing the National Transitional Council (NTC) have occurred has drawn more attention to it. Nevertheless, a policy that has its usefulness begin and end on the basis of timing perhaps requires giving countries more time so as for the matter not to seem like a race. And if it is acknowledged that some political analyses of what was taking place in Libya have proved not to be sound, this does not mean the negation of all possibilities. There is only the firm awareness of the necessity not to repeat the mistakes of the former regime, especially in terms of interfering in the internal affairs of others. Indeed, such a rule was at the forefront of the reasons for the former regime's enmities with its neighborhood and with the world. The time has come to give it up for good. Indeed, what matters is not the outburst of current disputes between Libya and Algeria. Rather, what matters is to head towards rational and realistic measures signifying that the region of North Africa without Colonel Muammar Gaddafi will not be the same after his political departure. And in order for the belief to become entrenched that the entire region is on the verge of undergoing radical changes, what is required is no less than burying the disputes of the past. This does not apply to Algiers and Tripoli alone, but goes beyond them from the city of Selloum to the northern banks of the Senegal River. Algeria is not the first country to host family members of the head of a fallen regime. Indeed, there is in international relations and customs what allows for the right of asylum on humanitarian grounds, especially if the asylum-seekers commit to not engaging in any political activity in opposition to the new regime. Thus, there are still members of Saddam Hussein's family residing in Arab countries without this meaning for crises to erupt in Iraq. Indeed, it is on the basis of compassion and mercy that it was resorted to welcoming those who had suffered humiliation from among those who had not had their hands smeared with the blood of innocents, and that is an issue in which the humanitarian should not mix with the political.
