Algeria has been missing a Maghreb event, ever since the failure to hold a Maghreb summit, which has been postponed for around two decades. And here it is hosting a meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Maghreb, this time in parallel with celebrating its fifty years of independence. It, along with its partners of the moment, must surely feel their grief dispelling, as they reminisce about their history, of which they have shared the bread and the salt. Indeed, nothing draws the capitals of North Africa more than turning to their past, to the days when there were no borders, customs or checkpoints. The cause of this is perhaps that they are fond of obsessing about the past in order to forget the failures of the present and the uncertainties of the future. In Morocco, comrades of the resistance gathered from different parts of the Maghreb to pay tribute to the late Ahmed Ben Bella, in recognition of his efforts to open up the Algerian liberation movement to equivalent movements in the Maghreb, by the logic of solidarity and of cohesion in the shared battle of liberation. Before this, politicians and researchers had not neglected to revive shared memory by examining the record of struggle of Tunisian labor union leader Farhat Hached and Moroccan political thinker Allal Al-Fassi. Indeed, there was no event or initiative taken in this or that country that would not find its echo in increasing forms of integration and loyalty. Yet such a spirit that resembles grieving on ruins has but one meaning: the feeling of the impact of events that have driven their paths apart, creating a profound chasm between the past and the present and leaving out the links between the objective factors that formed a shining image and other factors that thwarted the great dream of building a strong and cohesive Maghreb Union. And unfortunately, rewriting the history of region has never exceeded the stirring of emotions. For several reasons, the glimmer of the moment has faded. It was suitable for paths and choices to part at the threshold of building independence, in view of the ramifications of ideological struggles that imposed themselves on the region and on the Arab World. And it would not have been acceptable for such disagreement to turn into a clash. Yet history does not stop at the edge of mutually committed mistakes, but rather brings about positive influence by turning towards self-criticism and rectifying flaws, which has not happened so far. Fifty years ago, at the time of Algeria's independence, France and Germany established a historical reconciliation led by General Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer amid a climate rife with wounds and bruises. Ever since then, new horizons have opened up for yesterday's enemies that have gradually spread to the rest of Europe, which has abandoned a complex that had led much blood to be shed. Without this historical understanding, plans of European unity would never have seen the light of day, after having started as a modest experiment in the trade of coal and steel that brought France and Germany closer together. The experiences of the Maghreb countries were not so distant from such initiatives. Indeed, with the exception of the border disputes that weighed heavily on the state of conflicts and disagreements before they were gradually resolved, tendencies with a unifying dimension dominated the features of political choices that gained admiration, among them the preoccupation with border economy and the ratification of bilateral and multilateral treaties of cooperation that made sure to be based on the building blocks of complementarity. Yet chauvinistic winds and circumstantial interpretations shook these building blocks at a time when the cost of the achievement was insignificant, when compared to the additional charges it would require today. The countries of the Maghreb have passed on many fateful moments, and every time pretexts would be found that would be similar to one pinning items on a time that does not meet its promises. A strong cause, ideological polarization and differences in choices made were part of the great gulf out of which disputes came, and the Cold War ended without taking with it its vocabulary and its stances. There was also a desire to benefit from the changes taking place in Europe, on the Northern shore of the Mediterranean. But the depth of disagreements remained too great to be crossed by small rafts devoid of oars, as the sea separating the two shores was prey to political waves and winds that went against the sails of forward-looking progress. There remained only for the Arab Spring to impress its strength, which has shaken fortresses. Indeed, the construction of the Maghreb is not a demand of the elites or of a certain segment of society, nor is it a transient demand. It is like one of the necessities of freedom, social justice and democratic awareness. It holds in its folds realistic and reasonable solutions to the problems of growth and the challenges of food and economic security, as well as of engaging the values of the age. It is not because it was not raised among the slogans of popular anger that it lacks an urgent nature. And it is not because the wagers of domestic reform are moving forward unlike all else that they do not represent a central element of the prerequisites of reform. They are an indivisible part of the whole, and in fact it is the whole that melts away the disputes of the parts. And on the occasion of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Maghreb, it becomes necessary to consider the fact that security concerns cannot be dealt with on the basis of approaches that are of limited influence. It is strategic security that cannot be partitioned between its political, economic and cultural pillars. It is the security that was sought by the pioneers of the Maghreb's liberation movements in the face of colonialism. And it is by this method alone that continuity in the movement of history can be achieved, so as for immortalizing glorious memories not to remain a way to flee from the present to the past.
