There is no major difference between the two concepts of building a “Maghreb Organization” or a “Maghreb Union.” But a closer examination of the terminology leads us to a more accurate interpretation. When the Maghreb Union stumbled due to the political differences that prevented the heads of these states from even holding summits prior to 1994, there were calls to re-activate the union according to a new set of foundations. Some considered that the economic dimension is a viable basis; this in addition to containing the contradicting political stands similarly to the experience of the Common Market in the north. Others merely alluded to political coordination, as a way to achieve an advanced form of partnership. Meanwhile, internal preoccupations have bogged down all parties equally. Now, on the occasion of his country's commemoration of the “Green March” that marks the recovery of the desert provinces from Spanish colonial rule in the mid-seventies, the Moroccan King Mohammed VI proposed the idea of a “Maghreb organization.” As a prelude to the latter, he made an honest call for Algeria to launch both a bilateral and multilateral dialogues in the context of the new Maghreb structure. He adduced in this regard the changes being witnessed by the region and the Arab world, in the context of the so-called Arab Spring. In truth, this proposal is not a circumstantial one. What goes beyond it, however, is the fact that the Maghreb Union was built on the Moroccan-Algerian accord at the end of the eighties. The mere idea of such a project, with the readily available religious, linguistic, historic, and geographical factors conducive for unity, is out of the question unless the two countries that had the biggest effect on their regional surrounding would see an improvement in their relationships. In addition, this outlook would not have imposed itself if it weren't for the signs of the end of the Cold War and the propensity of the region's countries to think through the logic of the mutual interests, away from that polarization that has squandered major efforts and potentials. Terms might change to mean that the idea of building a “Maghreb Organization” should include that all the political, economic, cultural, and security-related dimensions within it. In addition, the organization must decrease the contradiction between the so-called “Maghreb of the populations” and the “Maghreb of the governments”, since ultimately the organization must assimilate all its components. All the parties would be given the freedom to join this or that form of alliance, all on the path that would integrate all their positive experiences. Most importantly, the Maghreb region has changed following the collapse of the Tunisian and Libyan regimes, amid the risk of contagion spreading in every direction. Since the region has started in earnest to take a different shape than the previous regional and internal situation, there is a need to explore the features of the road through new policies and under accord, brotherhood, and solidarity. The importance that the Maghreb Union had upon establishment has now grown even further. This union used to be viewed as a viable regional gathering that could match the experience of the countries of the GCC in the east, and that had the capacity of absorbing the growing influence of the European Union in the north. Now, failure to establish this union will negatively reflect on the economic and social conditions in the countries concerned. The absence of an Arab Maghreb was the heftiest of the losses that hit the region and this did not help the region to tackle changes, the issue democracy, and development. The Maghreb Union used to be a strategic goal. However, its effect on the ground did not go beyond being an incomplete choice that lacks the will to turn into real policies. Chance had it that all the pioneers who established this experience disappeared consecutively. Only shadows remain of the leaders who signed the founding treaty. But this involuntary and sometimes harsh absence did not cause anyone to doubt the need to establish a union with such historic and strategic importance. In fact, the definition alone is full of new concepts. Undoubtedly, opting to build a new Maghreb organization will free the current leaders from the mistakes of their predecessors and also from the intransigence that had delayed the progress of the project. Whether the call is issued by this or that side is not important. Initiatives are measured through the extent of their effectiveness and their outcomes on the ground. Most importantly, there should be an agreement over objectives in order to see the ship safely docked at harbor. The timing of the King's call perhaps indicates that it is now time to remove all obstacles. The late Hassan al-Thani had said, at the first conference of the first Maghreb summit, that the Sahara issue represents a major hurdle to the Maghreb structure. Who can remove these obstacles then without spilling any blood? Let the United Nations try their luck. This could free all the different sides from the obstacles that delayed the Maghreb structure, which has now become a “Maghreb organization”, with stay of execution.
