Perhaps a quick reflexion, then. As the article notes, in theory in force, in practice "technically in applicable as none of the member states of the Agadir accord have actually taken the practical steps to do so re customs rules, etc.

Why? Well, at the simplest level, the governments, none of which have particularly deep stability and all of which face several social pressure in the area of economic opportunity, negotiated and signed the agreements with little intention of making much effort to enable them. Feel-good showmanship to play to the naive reflexes of the Arab publics that like to feel that something Ummah-ish is being done (but due to their extreme parochialism and naivete, rarely understand the overall costs and benefits of actually following through on the naive, often superficial emotional attachment to the Pan-Islamic concept - in the Arab Middle East this is usually taken as synonymous with Arabs I would add).

When it comes time for implementation, then the real interests come out - sadly real interests that were not dealt with during the "negotiations" nor properly analyzed when the political showman ship was being negotiated, well arranged.

These habits are in part something rooted in old Arab culture that valued the word over the deed, but to place it entirely in this context is abusive and in many ways ahistorical. Rather, I rather feel that much of the reliance on political theatre with little to no real substance is largely tied to the lack of substantive political legitimacy for most of the regimes - or their fragility even where substantive domestic legitimacy does exist on some level (e.g. Morocco in large part). Given a lack of real engagement with the concerned interest groups - even on the elite level - and a perceived (and I think actual) need to play to grand gestures to attempt to keep illusions going, initiatives within region that are not driven by outside interests continuously fall flat given the hollowness of the political establishments. Oddly, this contributes to their further hollowness, as the vast chasm between word and deed exceeds tolerable levels, and the clear reality that only foreign (non-Arab / Muslim) intiatives go forward (ironically because they are indeed foreign, and not dependent on romantic, naive and ultimately magically conceived Ummah-hood) further contributes to the lack of legitimacy.

Of course, this entire, brief reflexion ignores the question of whether the free trade agreements were good ideas. I assume as a baseline that they were, in general, although clearly the Agadir accord was, well, not terribly well thought through in some aspects.

Sadly, the habits of non-performance on the MENA Arab side carry over into dealings with Europe and the US. It is sadly amusing to find, as in the case of the Moroccan FTA with the US, the Moroccans being caught utterly flat-footed by the Americans expectation that, well, yes, you have to implement the bloody agreement and that means actually putting in place the practical measures to implement and not merely engaging in public rhetorical flourishes, while leaving established interests untouched.

Of course, the US - Moroccan FTA, for all that American officialdom in region never ceases to promote it, looks rather like a dud, but that's not terribly surprising. The Jordanian one looked rather similar.