It does not matter if the Iranian nuclear program is a priority for the Americans. Indeed, the postponement of American Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Algeria and Morocco leaves the door half open to the monitoring of the developments in North Africa. And when Kerry returns, he will find that the strategic dialogue sought by his country with the two neighboring states will be easier to secure than an open bilateral dialogue between them, considering that his visit – in addition to other regional facts – detonated the contradictions lying behind the illusions surrounding any possible détente. It was enough for Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to echo an American proposal for the expansion of MINURSO's prerogatives for including the monitoring of the human rights situation in the Sahara to provoke waves that caused the surfacing of the deep disputes. He did so, although he was aware of the fact that the mere tackling in the media of a proposal that was withdrawn by President Barack Obama's administration – after the emergence of tensions in the relations between Rabat and Washington, unlike what the two allies are used to – the brandishing of the human rights card once again pushed the relations with Rabat to the brink of the abyss. For his part, Moroccan Monarch King Mohamed VI issued a decisive response in a speech he delivered on the anniversary of the Green March. He said that raising the human rights issue was not innocent and was the work of organizations and lobbies, accusing Algeria – without mentioning it by name – of stripping the Algerians of their livelihood to fund its hostile campaigns against his country. Hence, the confrontation that was related to human rights and featured mistrust transformed into a much deeper political crisis. The relations between the two neighbors have always known wide disagreements over the position towards the Sahara issue, the ongoing closing of the land border, the handling of the security challenges in the Sahel neighboring states, and the various sensitivities going against the logic of things, i.e. cohabitation and good neighborly ties. However, the two countries' rush into the war of statements and counterstatements revealed that their crisis can erupt at any moment and that all the attempts to conceal it – whether bilaterally or regionally – are mere painkillers. Rivalry has thus turned into hostility, and it would be difficult for any observer of the developments to know how the coordination steps and the joint struggle which brought the Moroccans and Algerians together in the face of French colonialism, ended in such aversion, divergence and clashes. The two countries fought each other in the wars of the land like they never did against others, managing in the meantime to sign border demarcation and good neighborliness agreements. But they stopped when it came to the wars of men. At this level, nothing reflects this unique situation better than the complications affecting the Sahara file, with a population divided between Morocco, Tindouf, and Mauritania. This reached the point where the United Nations recognized the impossibility of organizing a referendum, due to the absence of any estimates or figures of the number of people qualified to participate in whichever popular survey. And among the repercussions of this scattering is that the legal and political responsibility for the population's situation has generated wide divide over the principles and positions. When the Moroccan monarch asked those issuing accusations about the human rights situation to head to Tindouf, in the southwestern part of Algeria, he was putting the blame on the conditions that caused the scattering of the population. But Algeria on the other hand believes it is doing nothing more than support the people living in a territory under its influence, to allow them to determine their own fate. But the issue is debatable between the various opinions and opposite descriptions. And what is more dangerous at this level is that division was one of the proposals for the resolution of the conflict, at a time when it is seen on the ground through the forfeiting of the identity and affiliation. In this context, those who have been living in camps for around four decades cannot be compared to those who have been enjoying a regular life under different political, social and cultural circumstances. The division of the population will take another turn. In all the border regions between states, there is something called border economy, which affects areas of cooperation, complementarity, and merger. This inclination is enhanced by social relations, whether marital, familial, or neighborly. When the border is closed, the division of the population is one of the most negative repercussions, and this applies to the border strip between Morocco and Algeria, because regardless of the disputes and divergences surrounding the backdrop, reasons and dimensions of the problem, they do not justify the undermining of the ties between families. And this is especially true in the case of two countries with a common history, creed, language, and fate. All these disputes among others are being reflected in the contradictory political positions. And what is certain is that when the American secretary of state will conduct his deferred tour in the Maghreb region, he will be testing the will of its two largest countries to extend bridges of cooperation and coordination. The Americans once considered the establishment of an open partnership – such as the expanded European partnership – between the North African states. However, they might reconsider this choice in case there are no encouraging signs pointing in that direction. Hence, instead of complaining about one another, the two rivals should be complaining to one another, although this has become impossible.
