President Bouteflika’s recent comments regarding the French colonization of Algeria have caused quite a stir. His fuss holds the potential to accomplish a great deed; placing such a burden on the world community’s conscience that they feel moved to take meaningful action in Darfur, or at least to make them seriously contemplate it. But it does not seem to be the case that Mr. Bouteflika, or any one else, is going to use this tremendous opportunity to do good.

His comments have been a source of reflection for me over the past week or so. Firstly, I am inclined to sympathize with his postion; I do believe that the French occupation of Algeria, and its methods of rule had genocidal tendancies. He’s on the money in that respect. I am also glad that someone is bringing this issue up, as it is common for historians and politicians to over look not just the massacres at Setif and Gulema in 1945 (on V-E Day no less), but the overall French presence in Algeria and its intentions. It seems that there has actually been a resultant of Bouteflika’s angry speeches: historians, not just Algerian ones have come out in support of the label of genocide. Most of the historians that have used the term “genocide” in reference to the French experience in Algeria have been Algerians, or other Arabs, and often have drawn paralles between the French occupation of Algeria and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But a British historian of Armenian origins, Aza Sarafian, has spoken up in favor of Bouteflika’s appellation,

criticising the French draft law that will punish the deniers of the Armenian genocide, said France should first start with its role in Algeria and Rwanda. (Note, this quotation comes from Zaman Online, a Turkish paper that seems to deny the fact of the Armenian genocide)

Sarafian is a prominent publisher of primary sources on the Armenian genocide, and his calls for France to recognize its past are quite interesting. This could lead to a wider recognition of France’s brutal history in Africa, and perhaps for pressure from foreign academics and leaders for the French state to take responsibility for its actions. There is little doubt that the French colonial forces and settlers were aiming to eliminate all that was remotely Arab from Algeria; they often said as much in their communal newspapers and journals. The French even had a term for the removal of natives from the coastal and fertile regions to the dry and arid back country: refoulement. (More on the French colonization of Algeria can be found here, the second part of a two part essay published on my other blog.)

However, I disagree with Bouteflika’s belief that Algeria has a “‘fundamental right’ to a ‘public and solemn apology for the crime of colonisation committed against our people’”. State apologies are insincere and produce nothing of value. The perpetrators of this genocide no longer walk the earth or sail its seas, and for the men of today to apologize upon their behalf is a ridiculous notion. If a heart felt apology could be levied from Bertrand Clauzel or the Governor-Generals, I would be all for such action, and for bringing them to international authorities. But it is not. None of them are alive today, save for the most elderly of soldiers who massacred hundreds at Setif and Gulema in 1945 and those who tortured members of the FLN during the War of Independence. Is it truly realistic though, to think that Jean-Marie Le Pen, or Jacques Chirac will sincerely apologize for their actions during that hairy sally?

No. Algerians can at best hope for a strong recognition and condemnation of the genocidal practices that took place from the time of Charles X to De Gaulle. But a formal apology is unlikely and undesirable. After the apology, the French nationalists may ask, “Why should we write or read about this now? We’ve apologized, get over it.” An apology would do more harm to the Algerian historical cause than good. Recognition would allow for the French people of today, most of whom had little to do with the colonization of North Africa, to not have to assume responsibility for the horrendous crimes of their forefathers, and Algerians recieve due respect from the French state.

My second thought is less positive. It is clear that Bouteflika is using the issue of genocide as the “nationalist card,” in a way similar to how Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the nuclear issue in his country. In hopes of showing to the people of Algeria that he is a true patriot, and not just a corrupt thugg, Bouteflika is banging the drum of Algerian nationalism, appealing to the sensitive emotions that are attached to Algeria’s colonial history. In doing so, Bouteflika mainly appeals to the older generation; pensioners, verterans and their ilk. But could Bouteflika’s efforts have a more sinister motivation behind them than cheering up the toothless crowd?

While President Bouteflika is ranting and raving about tribulations gone past, a real genocide is taking place on Algeria’s own continent, and within its cultural and political realm. Violence in Darfur, Sudan have taken hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced milions. Bouteflika’s coments have not called attention to this; in fact, they have the serious potential of distracting certain individuals away from the hellish state of affairs in Sudan as of late.

President Bouteflika, having lived during an era of colonization and under the pauperized Algeria of the 1940’s and 1950’s should know that it is not a good feeling to be left all alone to jackels. Algeria needs to take a vocal stance against the Islamist and misanthropic policies of the Sudanese government. Algeria, a nation supposedly seeking to rebuild its world wide reputation as a dealer in peace (Algerians worked to ease tensions between Iraq and Iran during the 1970’s, to negotiate the release of American hostages from Iran in 1979, and Mr. Bouteflika himself aided in settling the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea) and cooperation, has seemingly ignored the crisis in Sudan. It would do Algeria’s reputation a great deal of good internationally if it were to come down hard on Sudan, if even rhetorically.

Algeria’s silence is not out of place though. Leaders of Middle Eastern and North African states frequently lament the trials and conspiracies of the past while ignoring those of the present. How often, for example, does one hear Iranian leaders admonishing the UK and the US for Operation Ajax? It is common to hear Arab leaders shouting cries of “colonialism” or “imperialism” while they have no foriegn troops, and quite often very few foreign embassies, on their soil. Algeria is simply following along with its peers. The root of Algeria’s indifference may be that the government truly is not concerned with the happenings in Darfur and in Chad. It is more likely, however, that the government does not wish to irritate its long time military patrons, Russia and China, and its odd new bed fellow, Iran; all of whom are against military or otherwise decisive action in Sudan at any level outside of the Sudanese state. An other fear is most certainly that if a given Arab state takes its own position, out of step with the main steam of “Arab” opinion, it will be marginalized by other states in the region. None of the Arab League states support action to end the genocide in Darfur.

It is then a pitty that President Bouteflika’s comments will likely have no value other than that of the sentimental. What a sight it would have been, to see Algeria, a country whose national character and social mannerisms were formed by an uncivilized and ostreperous genocide, among the leaders of the crusade against genocide. But it would seem that the leaders of that great nation are lacking in their ability to connect the events of the past to those of the present. So too are they lacking the manliness to step up and challege those who are committing the same sort of refoulement today that was enforced upon their forefathers.