At least two events distinguished the Malta 5+ 5 summit from the previous meetings that took place between the partners at the northern and southern banks of the Mediterranean, despite the fact that this structure was the outcome of a contradictory mechanism in light of the European security fears and the developmental aspirations of the Maghreb. The security dimensions took a turn in bringing together the economic, political, and military aspects of security. In addition, the economic and financial crisis cast its shadows on the northern axis that includes Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and Malta with different effect levels. The negative aspect of the changes that blew over the Maghreb region – especially when it comes to the security chaos, weapon smuggling and the growing acts of violence – was essential in highlighting the potential threats that might result if the Europeans were to just sit back and watch. It seems that the European political mind – which was taken aback by the first spark of the Tunisian anger – does not want to remain neutral or to wait for the future outcomes anymore, especially that the western nationals were the first victims of the hostage making series. The events that took place in Mali represented a very real alarm bell, particularly given that when it comes to the Maghreb region and its geographic extension in the Sahel to the south of the Sahara, no distinction is made between the stable countries and those countries that suffer from fragility and the absence of the power of the state. Perhaps the difference is that security is no longer limited to the logic of deterrence and the use of the army, police, and intelligence forces. Security is now rather linked to the rule of law, the consolidation of justice, and the shielding of freedom and dignity, which eventually leads to bringing down the reasons for tension in the relations between society and the state. The nature of the crises seen in the North African region, such as instability, was probably the reason behind the launching of a dialogue between the people of the two banks [of the Mediterranean]. In the 1990s, there were fears from the internationalization of the Algerian crisis. The emigrants with Maghreb roots were looked at differently following the launching of the terrorist attacks. In the context of limiting radicalism, the North Mediterranean countries started erecting barriers and walls to limit the movement of people and even goods. The North African countries responded to the European security related fears. In return, Europe granted those countries developmental aid under terms that were not really to their liking. These regimes were ridden with oppression, tyranny, and Human Rights violation. There was no balance and there was a need for making alliances, either with Europe, the regional neighbor, or with America in light of the Soviet Union's collapse, or with both parties. Things changed thanks to the massive transformations. It appeared that betting on change was the best way to protect the European interests. Indeed, the Europeans were mainly interested in monopolizing a consumer market worth millions of dollars in addition to guaranteeing security in order to enhance this market. In addition, the Maghreb region is still the main gate to a crisis-ridden Africa. Any imbalance to this equation will primarily harm the Europeans. The 5+5 summit gains additional importance from the fact that the Europeans are now looking at the events taking place in the Sahel in the south of the Sahara as if they were a fire that can possibly extend to other regions. Even the most stable African countries have reasons for a racial, tribal, and ethnic conflict. Thus, overlooking this tragedy in light of the expansion of the weapons' smuggling phenomenon following the collapse of Colonel Gaddafi's regime is not a successful solution. But on the other hand, the European partners at the southern bank do not agree on a unified approach. The war against terrorism is a factor that unites all the different parties. However, the reasons to achieve this goal differ from one capital to another especially in light of the difficulties faced by Libya and Tunisia in their strive to ensure the control of the state and to achieve a smooth democratic transition. Up until recently, Rabat and Alger had different positions concerning the security challenges in the Sahel due to different reasons. Today, the paradoxes are extremely deep, namely with respect to supporting the growing regimes that might be bringing about the era of democracy and that might prevent the radical, outlaw movements from gaining additional power. Several initiatives took place in order to contain the crises of the Sahel countries including meetings of the ministers of defense, the security and diplomatic forces; and the military maneuvers that witnessed a noteworthy western participation. However, all this was insufficient to confront the subsequent field developments. For instance, the Mali coup was met with a lesser extent of firmness, similarly to the coexistence with the humanitarian crises such as droughts, hunger, and epidemics spread in weary African countries.
