The Moroccans were waiting for the initiative to open the closed border with Algeria, but the response came and linked this decision to conditions, not the least of which being the imposition of the fait accompli at the level of the disputes between Algiers and Rabat over the Sahara file. In reality, had the diverging viewpoints between the two neighboring states not reached the level of a clash in regard to this particular issue, the border problem would not have lasted around twenty years. Indeed, the reason why the escalating disputes are preventing a positive normalization of the relations is that their source is one and the same, at a time when the closing of the border since the summer of 1994 did nothing but add new burdens along the course of faltering relations, which cannot face any new quakes. Algeria raised the ceiling of its conditions based on the rejection of what it dubbed a mediation whose nature it did not elucidate, knowing it was probably referring to the statements of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during his Maghreb tour, i.e. when he announced Ankara's willingness to undertake a mediations that would allow the reopening of the border. But what is noticeable is that the delayed Algerian position means that the issue extends beyond a mediation initiative that was not mutually welcomed. Regardless of the reasons behind the Algerian reaction, and whether they are internal or regional, it reveals the exclusion of any breakthrough along the front of the closed border, especially since the statements attributed to the leader of the Moroccan Istiqlal Party, Hamid Chabat, regarding the reopening of the file of border demarcation with Algeria, cast additional negative shadows over the course of the relations between the two countries. Despite the issuance of an official position by Rabat regarding the stance of the Istiqlal party, saying that it was binding to it as a political party and not as a government, what is constant is that the border demarcation agreement signed in 1969 was not ratified by the Moroccan parliament, considering that it coincided with the state of emergency which prevailed over the country between 1965 and 1970. At the same time, the summit between Algerian President Chadli Bendjedid and King Hassan II in the winter resort in Ifrane, recognized the renewal of the brotherhood and good neighborly relations agreement. But as much as this agreement allowed the two countries to enjoy a period of natural detente which was reflected positively over North Africa through the establishment of the Maghreb Union, the closing of the land border between the two negatively affected bilateral relations and the efforts to activate the Maghreb structure until this day. The Moroccans are not acting as if the reopening of the border is possible at any moment, while Algeria does not seem to be placing this file among its priorities. And what is certain is that what was difficult to achieve at this level under the mandate of Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, is more unlikely now that the Algerians are preoccupied with the arrangement of the internal situation in the country. On the other hand, when Moroccan Monarch King Mohamed VI heads to the Eastern region on the edges of the closed border to announce the launching of developmental projects, he is taking into account the possible coexistence with the closed border for a long time, although the improvement of the structures and facilities near Algeria in the east, enhances the chances of building a comprehensive border economy. Still, this accomplishment on the regional level requires a stronger political will, in order to overcome the obstacles that are still blocking the horizon. The situation on the common border between the two neighboring countries is unnatural and does not give any hope at the level of the Maghreb project, which seems to be more hindered than before. The paradox is that while the international transformations index is tilting towards the annulment of the border, the alleviation of the customs' measures and the facilitation of the establishment of complementary economies, the Maghreb region is drowning in contradictory isolationist principles, and it does not seem that all the wishes and initiatives which tried to bridge the gap and clean the air between the two brotherly states were able to break the barrier of paranoia and the lack of trust. At this level, no one knows whether Algeria is responding to the various positive efforts - the last of which was deployed by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon - or is insisting on the dual character of the problem related to the border, as well as on the dual character of the solution. On the ground, the border between the two countries remained open since the resumption of their diplomatic relations, although the disputes over the Sahara file persisted. This means that the realistic approach to alleviate the positions could start by dividing the problems that are not governed by disputes, especially since the efforts to ensure a peaceful resolution of the Sahara issue are sponsored by the United Nations and have been oscillating between hopefulness and failure. The most dangerous facet of these exceptional relations is that coexistence with them has become imposed by reality. There is a new generation of Moroccans and Algerians who only saw from these ties the closed border separating the partners in blood, familial ties and brotherhood, not to mention their unified doctrine, language and fate. And the most difficult predicament which both countries have to overcome is the enhancement of coexistence with an exceptional situation to ever govern the relations between states. What if Algeria does not want the mediation of any party to undertake an initiative that could to annul this exception? The paradox is that the reasons that led to the adoption of the decision to close the border no longer exists, neither in Algeria nor in Morocco, and that this situation is persisting outside the context of good neighborly ties, regardless of the justifications used by the sides involved in the crisis. What is mostly important is that reality does not change.
