February 17th has turned into the anniversary of the Libyan revolution. However, this date had previously been that of the signing of the Maghreb Union treaty in Marrakech in 1989. The wind of change that blew over the North African countries did not succeed in creating reassurances as to the fate of this pending experience of union that failed to be strategically implemented and is still lingering in people's minds and feelings. At least two important events coincided with the birth of the Maghreb Union, the first one consisting of the ideological revolution that brought the demise of the Eastern camp. This reflected on the North African countries through the emergence of the market economy, overcoming the differences of the cold war, and the tendency to come together. This helped Morocco and Algeria specifically to make the first steps in the direction of a short-lived détente. As for the second event, it consisted of the Arab Spring's launching from Tunisia followed by Libya in addition to the repercussions of that spring on the situation in Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. However, these two events modified the concepts, slogans and conclusions but failed to change a thing in the hanging situation of the Maghreb Union, of which nothing remained but the ruins of an incomplete structure. Just like the previous years, the concerned capitals will be reiterating that the Maghreb structure is a strategic choice although the actual dealing with this matter does not indicate that it is a priority or a need. At the end of the day, the concerned capitals are living with the choice of the No-Maghreb just like they had always done, as long as no economic fusion and no political coordination have been achieved. There is no difference between the situation preceding the signing of the Maghreb Union treaty and the present situation after around a quarter of a century has passed. The Maghreb capitals postponed a diplomatic meeting that was planned on the occasion of the anniversary of the Maghreb Union. It seems that it is now harder for these capitals to decide on the fate of the union that has been delayed for almost two decades. It is quite a paradox to keep talking about this option while the Maghreb partners failed to even agree on a date for the summit, especially that the treaty indicates that decisions must be made at the level of the presidency rather than at that the ministerial committees or the Secretariat General. The summit must be held mainly in order to revisit the structure and the decision-making processes. In that case, what other reasons are causing the indefinite delay of the summit? If the security related and political challenges facing the region in its southern part on the outskirts of the Sahel and Sahara countries are not a good enough reason to revive the Maghreb agenda, then what role will this comatose Maghreb Union be able to play? Now that there are no longer reasons for division; and now that the logic of coming together and forming unions has been installed in the countries that affect the North African region, mainly Europe, the pending situation of the Maghreb Union is no longer acceptable. If this is not the case for the Maghreb's main components, then it must be true for their partners that are looking for a sole negotiator. Although the idea of a Maghreb structure preceded the early European impulse to form a union, this pioneering idea has failed to crystallize into actual features. Similarly, the shared traits among the Maghreb countries when it comes to religion, language, geographic affiliations and historic depth failed to bring them together. Less than two years ago, the GCC suggested that Morocco and Jordan become members of the council, which succeeded in confronting all the different hurricanes. However, the Maghreb responded by coming up with an advanced economic partnership plan with a focus on the Maghreb option. The Maghreb Union's constituent treaty did not include any clauses preventing the union from opening up to the other Arab and African components. However, there is a reigning feeling that this option can still be revived. Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki launched his term with a tour of the Maghreb capitals where he carried along the project of the five freedoms that would allow the Maghreb structure to consolidate its political identity and its economic power. However, his call for holding a Maghreb summit to be hosted by the post-revolutionary Tunisia failed. Matters became even more complicated since the concerned capitals went back to practicing the politics of seclusion. Indeed, the relationship between Morocco and Algeria witnessed no encouraging détente and there was no progress in the basic agreement on activating the Maghreb process. Perhaps the only deadlines that the North African countries can no longer miss are the ones concerning the agenda of the 5+5 structure, which connects the two northern and southern banks of the Mediterranean Sea. The Europeans are making the right offers and commitments. They base their calculations on the strategic importance of the countries of the south in the diversification of the markets, the production of raw materials, and the maintenance of the power areas. On the other hand, all what their partners in the southern bank are doing is to reiterate their excuses and feelings of sorrow for the present situation of the Maghreb Union while they are the main responsible party for breaking this stalemate. Happy anniversary to the fake Union, which has been left in a corner and is only dusted off through the occasional congratulatory telegrams.
