I am attached to Europe, and I say that without hesitation. I studied there, I worked there, and a significant part of my professional and personal life was built there. For close to twenty-five years I have been moving between Morocco, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, in environments where transformation, skills, technology and governance sit at the centre of the decisions being taken.
That is precisely why something has been troubling me more and more: Morocco has changed profoundly, but the way some European actors look at the country has not always moved at the same pace.
In certain conversations and certain postures, a form of verticality remains. Morocco is still presented as a country to be accompanied, helped towards development, encouraged to align, to comply, to secure, to retain or to reform.
That logic increasingly belongs to the past.
Morocco is no longer simply a country of the “southern neighbourhood”. It is an economic, industrial, security, energy and geopolitical partner of Europe. In some areas, it is also a competitor. And that is exactly where the relationship has to grow up.
The recent events in Ceuta illustrate this with particular clarity. When the border comes under pressure, Europe expects strong cooperation from Morocco on migration and security. That expectation is legitimate. But it also points to a simple reality: the stability of certain European borders depends directly on the quality of the relationship with Morocco.
We cannot, therefore, be treated as a peripheral country when things are calm, and as an indispensable partner the moment a crisis appears. If we are part of the solution, we should be considered part of the relationship.
The same contradiction appears in the conversation about talent. After more than twenty years in HR and organisational transformation, I see every day how far skills have become a strategic issue for Europe, faced with an ageing population and growing shortages in a number of professions.
In that context, Moroccan talent has become particularly attractive. Engineers, doctors, developers, technicians and qualified professionals are in demand, and Europe is now building organised mechanisms to attract the skills it needs.
I see no problem with that in itself. International mobility creates value, and I would be the last person to defend a closed view of the labour market. But the debate then has to be carried through to the end: we cannot speak of immigration when the profiles do not match the needs of the moment, and of talent mobility once those same people become useful to the European economy.
The real question should be the circulation of skills, joint training, international career paths and the sharing of the value created. Morocco invests in developing its talent. It is only reasonable that it also asks how that value contributes to its own development.
The same applies on the economic side. When Morocco supplies industrial components, services, energy or skills that Europe needs, the word “partnership” comes easily. When our companies become more competitive, when our agriculture gains market share or our industry moves up the value chain, the tone sometimes becomes far more defensive.
Yet a mature partner is not condemned to remain complementary. It can also become competitive. That is in fact one of the signs that the relationship has worked.
Morocco is not asking for privileges, and it does not need them. It is simply asking that the rules be clear, fair and applied in the same way whether we are suppliers, clients or competitors.
The question of standards seems to me even more important. Europe holds considerable regulatory power and produces standards that often end up applying well beyond its own borders. For a country like Morocco, deeply integrated into European value chains, that means continuously adapting its industries, its processes and at times its public policies.
This is how a large market normally works, but the more strategic the relationship becomes, the more one question will have to be asked: will Morocco remain only a country that applies rules designed elsewhere, or will it gradually be able to take part in shaping them when they directly affect its economy?
The difference between the two is not technical. It is political. It separates a relationship of alignment from a genuine partnership.
I do not want to place the responsibility for this situation on Europe alone. Morocco has to change its own posture as well, because you cannot ask to be treated as a strategic partner while constantly seeking external validation.
Our ambition should not be to become the model student of Europe’s southern neighbourhood. It should be to become a country strong enough, competitive enough and open enough to choose its partnerships according to its own interests, whether those partners are European, African, Atlantic, American, Asian or Middle Eastern.
Europe will remain essential for Morocco, and I am convinced that Morocco will become increasingly important for Europe. It is precisely that interdependence which should take us beyond the old reflexes.
The 2030 World Cup offers, to my eyes, a particularly interesting symbol of this shift. Morocco, Spain and Portugal will host one of the largest events in the world together. Morocco will not be invited to take part in a European project; it will be a co-organiser.
That is exactly how I picture the relationship of the years ahead: partners able to defend their interests, to disagree, to negotiate firmly and still build together.
So I am not asking for less Europe for Morocco. I want a Europe that is closer, more present and more ambitious in its relationship with us, but on a more mature basis.
And I would like Morocco to hold itself to exactly the same standard.
Because Morocco has changed, Europe has changed, and we now share enough interests to leave behind the reflexes inherited from another era.
So yes, with a great deal of respect, and with the same expectation of respect in return: please stop talking down to us.