The Maghreb capitals postponed the discussion of security matters until the meeting of the interior ministers of the 5+5 structure in Algeria in light of the growing threats coming from the Sahel and the Sahara. The only new thing in this decision – that maintains the same dialogue pace between the Maghreb and the European group – is that it highlights the security dimension in dealing with the sensitive regional issues. The North African countries have thus been lured into adopting the same security approach that the Europeans are adopting in their war against terrorism, illegal migration, and drug smuggling while the developmental approach, which is more effective, has taken a back seat. Terrorism, migration, drug smuggling and other aspects would not have grown in the Sahel and its surroundings if it wasn't for the availability of a fertile ground there represented in the absence of the state control over the borders, the instability, and the severe differences between the South and the North, not to mention the social crises, the ill interpretation of the Islamic faith, and the racist and sectarian sentiments. As pressure increases against the radical movements, these will obviously look for alternatives under the religious and political cloaks. If these reasons aren't sufficient to push the North African capitals to adopt a unanimous speech in front of their European partners that are dashing towards the region's resources, markets, and security protection, then what circumstances could affect the hesitant and non-cohesive speech? The Algerian Foreign Minister, Mourad Medelci, stated that the security situation in the Arab Maghreb and the Sahel doesn't provide the right circumstances to hold the Maghreb summit that has been postponed indefinitely. This statement represents one of the important aspects of the barriers hindering the Maghreb structure. Indeed, if the security challenges failed to push the Maghreb countries to coordinate their efforts and positions, then nothing can possibly push them in the direction of additional agreement and harmony. In this sense, the political differences and the contradictory positions concerning the priorities of the Maghreb structure are not the only factors that are hindering the rapprochement efforts. The security dimension resulting from the situation in Mali and the Sahel has turned into an additional obstacle. In light of this situation, one wonders: How can the Maghreb states – that have failed to agree on the multilateral regional matters – succeed in holding a successful dialogue with their European counterparts at the 5+5 group? The Europeans know what they want. Their positions are characterized by harmony and solidarity to the extent that they support each other in the face of any crisis. Meanwhile, the Maghreb people failed to have a single unified approach regarding the majority of the files. The role of the interior and foreign ministers as well as of the Maghreb Shura Council or the sectorial committees consisted of preparing files alongside some specialized experts. However, all the recommendations and suggestions will not be implemented unless the Summit ratifies them. For two decades now, no summits have been held and whenever some promising matter turns up, the relevant file gets transferred to the councils of ministers. The European ministers of the 5+5 group in the sectors of the judiciary, security, defense, and all the other cooperation sectors are available for delegating the decision-making power. The Europeans called for high-level meetings but they failed to push their Maghreb counterparts to follow the same approach. Nothing will force the Maghreb decision makers to follow in the footsteps of the unparalleled open European dynamism unless they arm themselves with pragmatism and rationality in order to understand the deep changes that call for partnership, openness, and unity. The need for the Maghreb structure increased at least in three instances. Its establishment coincided with the revolution that hit the fortresses of the collapsing eastern camp under the blows of the aspiration for freedom and Human Rights. This toppled the obstacles of the ideological differences that had prevented the rapprochement of the North African countries, even though some of the repercussions proceeded until every reason for concern and suspicion was dealt with. After more than two decades, the Arab Spring hit the Maghreb region and represented a strong indication that new chapters will be started in the relationships between the components of the Maghreb Union. The Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki opted for conducting a Maghreb tour before anything else because he believed that the fruits of the spring must flourish at home first. As for the third instance, it consisted of the deteriorating situation in the area of the Sahel and the emergence of the Northern Mali crisis, which attracted international attention in fear of the expansion of terrorism. However, and although some of the Maghreb countries were the first to warn of these threats, these countries failed to come up with unified and harmonious stands although they were mostly affected by the repercussions of the growing crisis. When looking at all these challenges, it appears that some force is pulling the North African countries backwards. Praising the benefits of the Maghreb structure has turned into a common concern even for the Europeans.
