Moritanos is in Gibraltar, not for the purpose of tourism or relaxation, but for conveying a message about the persistent Spanish demands to restore Spanish sovereignty over the rock named after Moroccan conqueror Tarek Bin-Ziyad. But the Spanish foreign minister, who intentionally visited the rock by land, took into consideration the fact that Spain's refusal to abandon its demands for sovereignty over Gibraltar does not prohibit the establishment of a tripartite dialogue between Spain, the United Kingdom, and the officials in the island about areas of cooperation. The Europeans, despite their political differences, prefer dialogue over tension. The problem in international relations between north and south is that what the Europeans accept when solving problems among each other, is rejected when dealing with other worlds. One morning, the warships of the British crown sailed to invade the Falkland islands claimed by Argentina. We also have the case of the Spanish king Juan Carlos who ignored the Moroccan-Spanish Accord and visited the occupied cities of Ceuta and Malilah in northern Morocco, despite the fact that the Mediterranean Sea separates Spain from North Africa, thus causing a diplomatic crisis between the neighboring countries. Britain, which is competing with Spain over the issue of sovereignty over Gibraltar, realized one day that its withdrawal from Hong Kong is no more than a gesture of acceptance of the laws of this age which prohibit colonies beyond borders. Portugal did the same with the Macau islands, after its ships used to roam the seas beyond Europe. Spain, which is the closest to the Arab world on the level of history and civilization, still constitutes an exception concerning its persistent colonization of Moroccan lands. It has always sought to cement the status quo in the region, whether by giving the Spanish nationality to the Moroccan inhabitants of the two cities, by including it within the sphere of the European Schengen, or by erecting walls and checkpoints under the cover of the concern for illegal immigration. It would have been enough for Morocco to cut the two cities' water supply or ban the sale of Egyptian-made goods and commodities which invade Moroccan markets coming from the occupied lands to strangle their economic and commercial space, but they did not do so because they are following a diplomacy of dialogue and negotiations to produce a compromise that restores sovereignty to Morocco while preserving the interests of the Iberian neighbor. The issue is not devoid of complications because it is subject to an old colonial mentality with all the concerns and fears of religious wars. But the Spanish have not met the Moroccan gesture with a similar one. There are extremist circles inside the Spanish army and political fabric that have yet to digest the taste of the withdrawal from the desert. They still look at Morocco as a source of threat "from the south". The archives of the military institution in Madrid are filled with extremist scenarios about methods of handling what they consider to be a threat. What happened during the crisis of the Leila island a few years ago was no more than dusting one aspect of these scenarios. In a declassified Moroccan approach to the issue, there is an assertion that the strategic background which necessitated maintaining Spanish influence on the southern bank of the Mediterranean is no longer as important as it was during the cold war era. The war on terror dictates a different model that replaces conflict with cooperation. From this background, Al-Rabat considers that ending the British-Spanish disagreement about the Gibraltar rock opens room for re-opening the issue of Ceuta and Malilah, at least to restore Moroccan sovereignty while preserving the economic and commercial interests of Spain. There is only one option that imposes itself: the war that did not happen over the issue of fish and coastal fishing cannot happen over just demands that the Spanish do not want to discuss in the open. But the issue needs courage for admitting reality and not imposing a reality that is different than the historic and legal context which is made all too clear by the geography of the place.
