Question:
Talk of military intervention in northern Mali has escalated in recent days. Yesterday, Sunday, 11/11/2012, the leaders of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) met to discuss reclaiming northern Mali as part of the Malian state. Their decision was vague and indecisive; they decided to send 3,300 soldiers to Mali but simultaneously announced that the door to a political settlement remains open and dialogue has not been closed. This followed Security Council Resolution 2071 on 15/10/2012, which gave this group a 45-day deadline. Between these events, the positions of the major powers with colonial influence in Africa have been escalating. France has been the most insistent on military intervention, followed to a lesser extent by America, while Britain has shown a semblance of indifference. However, what is striking is that Algeria is the pivot of this matter; visits by officials from these countries are frequent, with one delegation arriving as another leaves, yet Algeria continues to oppose military intervention.
The question is: Why has Algeria become the station for competition among these countries in terms of communication, particularly from America and France? Why does Britain's voice seem faint? What are the positions and objectives of these countries in their contacts with Algeria?
Answer:
To clarify the answer, two important matters must first be reviewed:
First: The political reality of Algeria... and Second: The coup in Mali.
As for the political reality of Algeria:
It is well known that President Bouteflika, who was Foreign Minister during the era of Houari Boumédiène, followed the path of Boumédiène, who was linked to the British. Boumédiène came to power through a military coup he led in 1965 against Ahmed Ben Bella, who was loyal to America. Rule continued to be managed by British agents until French agents in the army carried out a coup in 1992 to prevent the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) from coming to power after they succeeded in the elections. They then forced Chadli Bendjedid to resign. After that, the army took control of the country but failed to manage its affairs, leading to political instability. After forcing Chadli to resign in 1992, they brought in Mohamed Boudiaf, who was then assassinated. They followed him with Ali Kafi, whom they later removed, and then handed power to the Minister of Defense, General Liamine Zéroual, one of their men. However, they could not address the consequences of their coup or stabilize the country after committing horrific massacres against the Muslim people of Algeria. In 1999, they agreed with Abdelaziz Bouteflika to be president on the condition that they would not face any accountability for their crimes and destruction of the country, and that he would work to heal the wounds by calling for harmony, peace, and reconciliation. Thus, he has been president since 1999 until today, following his declared victories in the 2004 and 2009 elections. Bouteflika remains closely connected to Britain, crowning this relationship with a visit to Britain in 2006, the first visit by an Algerian president to the UK.
Although the French group in the Algerian army—who are influential to an extent—realize Bouteflika's relationship with Britain and that he was not in harmony with French policy (he rejected the Union for the Mediterranean project proposed by France during Sarkozy's era, and the draft agreements discussed during Sarkozy's 2008 visit were never implemented), they remain silent. This is because the files regarding the crimes of the leaders of this group against the Muslim people in Algeria have not been closed. At any moment, Bouteflika could explode these files in their faces if they thought of a coup against him. Therefore, they have not opposed his policy, especially since he agrees with them on protecting secularism and the Republic they sanctify.
Thus, the general political line of the Algerian president follows British policy regarding the Mali issue, as explained below.
As for the Mali coup:
It occurred on 22/3/2012, and it was clear that America was behind it. America had been working to establish influence in Mali, beginning with agreements to train Malian forces in counter-terrorism and tactics for fighting rebel groups. They selected officers and sent them to the United States for training. The website Al-Asr reported on 24/3/2012, quoting informed American sources, that an American diplomat who requested anonymity told the press: "The coup leader, Captain Amadou 'Ahmadou' Haya Sanogo, was selected among elite officers by the American embassy to receive military training in counter-terrorism in the United States." He added that "Sanogo traveled to America several times on special missions."
The purpose of the coup was to remove French influence from Mali, which was its primary pillar, and replace it with American influence.
We have previously explained this matter in detail in the Answer to a Question dated 24/3/2012.
Now, after reviewing the two previous points, the question can be answered as follows:
The low volume of Britain's voice regarding military intervention is because the problem is primarily between America and France; America is behind the coup to uproot French influence from the region. Therefore, Britain, as is its habit, wants both parties to be preoccupied with this matter so that the conflict weakens them, leaving Britain as the winner or at least not the loser!
As for its position during its officials' visits to Algeria regarding Mali, it was an evasive stance toward military intervention while simultaneously supporting Algeria in its opposition to military intervention! The British Ambassador to Algeria, Martyn Roper, stated: "The United Kingdom stands by Algeria in this very critical stage," and "Britain prefers a peaceful solution if possible" (Al-Khabar Algerian newspaper, 22/6/2012). Alistair Burt, the British Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, visited Algeria on 23/6/2012 for three days to study the situation in northern Mali and strengthen relations with Algerian officials. "He valued the Algerian position rejecting military intervention to end the rebellion in northern Mali, saying that Britain supports resolving the ongoing conflict in the Sahel region through negotiations" (Essalam Algerian page, 24/6/2012). Britain does not want Bouteflika's Algeria to get involved in military intervention in northern Mali because that would give America opportunities to influence Algeria in preparation for extending its influence in this country, which would be at the expense of British influence in Algeria and North Africa.
This evasive British position was reflected in Bouteflika's Algeria. Therefore, Algeria's statements expressed a lack of desire for intervention on one hand, while supporting it on the other by speaking of a political solution while also speaking of "fighting terrorism" in northern Mali! This intentional ambiguity is seen when they say intervention has bad consequences—especially for the Tuareg—and requires a political solution, while simultaneously saying military action is necessary against terrorism. This was evident in the statement of the Algerian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Amar Belani: "We consider that the use of force must be handled with discernment to avoid any confusion or ambiguity between the Tuareg population of Mali, who have legitimate demands, and the terrorist groups and drug traffickers who must be the primary target as they are the source of danger threatening the region" (AFP, 30/10/2012). Thus, it holds the stick from the middle in the English fashion to keep the conflict between America and France burning while remaining distant from it. Because Britain's current policy avoids open confrontation with America, opting instead to disrupt it through other means, Algeria does the same. While it stands strongly against France in its discussions regarding northern Mali—even postponing a visit by the French President—it shows an inclination and responsiveness to American pressure. It cannot postpone a visit by an American minister at the same time a French president's visit is postponed! It appears that Algeria's attempt to please America was behind its request for France to postpone President François Hollande's visit. It takes a harsh stance toward France but shows leniency in its statements toward America, as is clear from the course of events.
As for France, it was hit in its vital spot by the Mali coup. The issue has become existential for it; if it cannot restore its influence in Mali, its influence in Africa will gradually end. Therefore, it is working diligently for international military intervention to return the state of Mali to its fold. It does not want American henchmen to remain in power in southern Mali and a quasi-state to exist in northern Mali, making it difficult for it to spread its influence as before.
Therefore, France is rushing toward military intervention in northern Mali because its influence there suffered a major blow following the military coup carried out by junior officers loyal to America on 22/3/2012. This influence is on the verge of collapsing in the entire region if France cannot handle the issue of Mali and its north. Thus, we see it working hard in the Security Council to issue resolutions related to military intervention and contacting countries in the region, especially Algeria.
Regarding its position during contacts with Algeria, it is pushing strongly for military intervention, yet Algeria has not responded. Al-Khabar newspaper quoted the French newspaper Le Canard enchaîné on 31/10/2012, stating that "the delay of French President Hollande's visit to Algeria, which was scheduled for November, until December was at the request of Algerian President Bouteflika." It mentioned that "France is sending signs of friendship [to Algeria] such as the visits of Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Interior Minister Manuel Valls, and the Élysée Palace's recognition of the bloody nature of the events of 17 October 1961." It quoted Hollande's advisors saying he hoped to convince Bouteflika "not to remain idle in the face of the armed Islamic groups controlling northern Mali." Despite all this, Algeria did not respond. Thus, France's primary focus is the return of its influence to Mali as quickly as possible. It sees military intervention as the way to occupy northern Mali and then move to the south, exploiting this "victory" to make its men in southern Mali move as France's front lines.
As for America, although it wants intervention to support its men in southern Mali, it is in no hurry. Rather, it wants to use the Mali problem to win Algeria over to its influence, hoping to use it as a launchpad in Africa against what it calls "terrorism," similar to how Pakistan is its launchpad in South Asia against the Taliban. Therefore, it has doubled its movements in Algeria under the pretext of Mali, but the discussions focus on other matters!
In other words, America is currently more concerned with introducing its influence into Algeria to branch out into Africa than it is with military intervention in northern Mali. Although this intervention is part of its policy, it wants it to be a pathway for its influence to enter Algeria. Simultaneously, it does not want France to have an influential role in the military intervention when America seriously decides to approve it.
Regarding its officials' contacts with Algeria, the outward appearance is discussing northern Mali, but the reality is seeking to establish ties with Algeria. This is evident from reviewing recent visits to Algeria. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Algeria and met with President Abdelaziz Bouteflika on 29/10/2012. At the conclusion of her meeting, Clinton stated: "We discussed our very strong bilateral relations, and we noted that we have just held an excellent Strategic Dialogue seminar hosted by Washington last week. We had very in-depth conversations about the situation in the region, especially in Mali" (AFP, Reuters, 30/10/2012).
She mentioned bilateral relations and Strategic Dialogue first, then mentioned in-depth talks on the region and Mali, meaning the primary goal was Algeria before the situation in Mali. What confirms this primary interest in Algeria is that Clinton left her assistant, Elizabeth Jones, behind to continue talks with officials, indicating that there are things America managed to achieve during this visit and the Assistant Secretary is working to complete them. Amar Belani, the Algerian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, stated: "The talks between Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci and US Assistant Secretary of State Anne Elizabeth Jones allowed for the evaluation of the results recorded in the framework of the first session of the Algerian-American Strategic Dialogue and for deepening consultations on a number of regional issues" (Algeria Press Service, 1/11/2012).
Furthermore, America does not want to give France any major role in any intervention if it decides to intervene in this region, and it does not want to help it carry out a military mission there because it fundamentally aims to remove French influence in Mali and the region. America's primary concern now is Algeria and extending influence there, using the issue of northern Mali as a pretext for movement within the country and the region. It is working to create means to achieve this goal, most notably by creating a "Strategic Partnership" with Algeria, as it did with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Turkey. Therefore, it is conducting talks aimed at establishing this partnership, which is a method of creating influence in a country through security, military, and economic cooperation.
Many Algerians realize that their country is being targeted by America. Al-Khabar newspaper reported on 29/10/2012 that a prominent leader of the Tuareg tribes in Tamanrasset (2,000 km south of the capital) rejected military intervention in northern Mali, considering it "a prelude to establishing military bases in the Sahara." The newspaper also quoted a member of parliament in the Ahaggar region saying: "What America and France are asking for in terms of foreign intervention will create many problems, and we, as elders of the Ahaggar region, ask Algeria to stand firm in its position against foreign intervention." Similarly, the Turkish Anadolu Agency quoted on 31/10/2012 Abdelaziz Rahabi, who formerly served as Minister of Communications and official government spokesperson, saying: "The Americans may ask Algeria to play a role similar to Pakistan's role in the international war on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda inside Afghan territory," clarifying that "Algeria will be asked to provide intelligence assistance or facilitate aircraft overflights."
Despite all this, Algeria is clearly showing flexibility and leniency toward American contacts as a way of "going along" with them, just as Britain does. America undoubtedly realizes this, but it seems to view this cooperation as the first step toward full participation—influence as it sees it—by using economic temptation, the "terrorism" bogeyman, or other means of pressure! In any case, this cooperation is evident over several visits by American officials to Algeria in recent months. During his visit to Washington last September, Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci praised the development of US-Algerian relations and the consultations between them on tension spots in the region. He said: "There is coordination and partnership between the Sahel countries and partner countries, including the United States, to provide the appropriate conditions to fight terrorism through information systems, technology, and equipment." He pointed to the development of relations on the level of military and economic cooperation, noting that the United States is Algeria's first commercial customer with $17 billion in 2011 (Algeria Press Service, 1/11/2012). The agency also mentioned that the second meeting of the Strategic Dialogue between the two countries will take place next year in Algeria.
This became even clearer through the statement issued by the Algerian Foreign Ministry on 28/10/2012, a day before Clinton's visit: "Clinton's visit falls within the context of the first session of the Algerian-American Strategic Dialogue held on October 19 of this month in Washington, which gave a noticeable push to political consultation between the two countries." The statement added: "The talks will center on strengthening the economic and security partnership between the two countries and regional and international issues of the day" (UPI, 28/10/2012).
It pains us that Muslim lands, including Algeria, Mali, and others, should be—in the absence of the Khilafah—a theater of conflict between the major powers. These major powers are disbelieving colonial states competing over Muslim lands to extend their influence, loot their wealth, and prevent their return to the rule of their religion in their lives and the establishment of a system emanating from it, embodied in the Khilafah state.
While the Muslim populations reject any foreign intervention, the existing regimes in their countries are content with it. These regimes are ready to accept foreign intervention; in fact, they are loyal to the disbelieving colonial states because they were founded on the basis of subordination to the West through their constitutions and systems, and their rulers are installed to proceed on this basis. They have been prepared to be loyalists and subordinates to these countries. As long as these regimes, their constitutions, their rulers, and the existing ruling mentality are not disposed of, Muslim lands will remain an arena for conflict between these states.
It is worth noting that when Algeria was a province (wilayah) of the Islamic Khilafah during the Ottoman era, America used to pay it taxes whenever its ships passed through the waters of this Islamic province. As stated in the American archives, "America, in the name of its president and founder George Washington himself, signed an agreement with the Governor of Algiers, Hassan Pasha, dated 5/9/1795, in which America pledged to pay 12,000 gold liras annually in exchange for the passage of American ships through the waters of the Wilayah of Algiers, and to pay 642,000 gold liras immediately for the release of American prisoners captured by the naval forces of the Khilafah when 11 American ships passed for the first time in the tenth and eleventh months of 1793." This is how America looked at Algeria when it was a province of the Khilafah; America then feared Algeria's anger, let alone thinking about having influence in Algeria!
The duty of every Muslim who believes in Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) is to work for the establishment of the Khilafah, which restores the Ummah's glory and victory, and first and foremost pleases its Lord, for it is the best Ummah brought forth for mankind. This is the source of this Ummah's pride and the path to its victory.
وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهَ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ
"And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might." (Surah Al-Hajj 22:40)