I have previously remarked on Algeria????????s growing ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and President Bouteflika????????s fiery rhetoric towards France on the issue of colonial apologetics. Both of these issues is contrary to Algeria????????s national interest, though on different scales. The first is an issue of independence in foreign policy, which has been a hallmark of Algerian foreign policy since independence. That is, how to balance relationships with international heavy hitters, be they First, Second, or Third World nations, while still maintaining flexibility on the world stage. Today this issue is similar to Algeria????????s domestic politics; will Algeria side with the liberal West, or the populist neo-Third Worldism of Ahmadinejad and his Islamist ilk in the Arab East. The second is threatening because it risks endangering an important economic and cultural relationship that is undeniable and inescapable. The first is more worrying because fruits may come of it. Algeria could easily alienate itself from its new Western allies.

The “neo-Third Worldism” that I mentioned earlier takes root not only in the Muslim World, but also throughout the newly industrializing and former Third World (the term “Third World” is rather irrelevant today, but I still use it when I????????m talking to my American friends to sound sexy; more often it sounds like a derogatory word for poor, which is quite a shame as I know many old timers from Algeria and elsewhere who are quite proud of the notion of “Third Worldism” and the solidarity that it connotates). One need look no further than the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to see this actively at work in the Americas, but it would do quite a bit of good to look a bit more southerly to the Republic of Bolivia as well. Many forces are at work in this region; a knee jerk reaction to recent methods and theories of development, historical paranoia, white versus native issues, and a variety of others.

I????????m not writing to explain Latin America????????s recent “left turn“. Rather I????????d like to share my own observation that every time a developing region or state moves towards an internationalist approach to its foreign policy, and embarks on a massive nationalization and attack on private property, other states follow suite. It is also common to see in these situations that a few of the most vocal states assume leadership of the world????????s “oppressed” and downtrodden. During the Cold War, this was evident in numerous post-colonial states as Indonesia, India, China, Vietnam, Kenya, Tanzania, Cuba, Algeria and Egypt, to name but a few, took to policies of import substitution, state run economies, the confiscation and redistribution, if not total abolition, of private properties and political homogenization by building cults of personality around strong nationalist leaders. The leaders of this world wide movement were usually personified by a strong nationalist dictator, who while on the one hand ensuring that his country????????s resources and territory has little to do with those on the outside (i.e. rabid xenophobia economically and culturally), and on the other hand made sure that the world knew that this same nation stood with other impoverished states in the world as they fought against the same colonial and feudal devils. In Asia the glorious leaders were Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Nehru. In Africa they were Kenyatta, Nyerere, and Nkrumah. In the Americas they were Che and Castro. In the Arab and Muslim World, they were Nasser, Saddam, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Algeria????????s own Ahmad Ben Bella and Hoauri Boumediene. All of these sought to expand their influence beyond their borders. In the case of Ghana????????s Kwame Nkrumah, he sought to unite Africa in a common state, from Carthage to the Cape, preferably under his rule. In the Arab world, Nasser, Saddam and Qaddafi all sought to unite the Arabic speaking world under their respective iron fists. None of these succeeded in their goals. Save for the liberation of Third World peoples from the scourge of abusive colonialist rule, especially in Vietnam, Algeria and Kenya, these leaders did little to better their peoples???????? lots, especially when crops failed because of poor collective farming techniques, and the native industries they cultivated failed miserably. Socialism in Africa, Asia and the Middle East was never meant to be.

This high minded and state oriented mode of thought (“The state can solve all our problems, the Vanguard Brother Leader will deliver us“) had largely died by the early 1980’s, except for in some intellectual circles. As a popular thought however, it was for the most part extinct however. Constitutions that once defined their states as “African socialist states” or “Algerian socialists” were amended to accommodate a wider variety of economic philosophies. This was certainly Algeria????????s case, where by the 1980’s privatizations and market liberalization had become routine. This liberalizing trend continues to this day. The Algerian economy has grown robustly since this strategy was adopted, and since 1999 with the end of the country????????s Civil War it has been able to unleash itself more fully from the chains of socialist slavery. But there is a threat to this. Neo-Third Worldism is its name. It comes in the form of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issuing statements that claim to speak for the whole of the Muslim community, and Algeria????????s rush to build ties with the Islamic Republic, ignoring that regime????????s total lack of respect for Algerian lives and support of terrorist groups of the GIA variety in Iraq and elsewhere. It further comes in the form of one Mr. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and his Bolivian little brother, Evo Morales. The first two regimes act in a way not dissimilar from Gamal abd en-Nasser of Egypt in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They assert themselves by bullying their neighbors and making trouble for Western (or developed) countries by nationalizing major industries and resources, threatening to destroy the “phenomenon of Israel” (as Ahmadinejad recently described Israel), or spouting off about Western imperialism in their countries.

There is a line that can be followed, clearly in Latin America. Castro to Chavez to Morales. This line probably goes farther down, but it essentially shows that there is a chain of command among these neo-Third Worldists. The Third World doyen, Fidel Castro influences and pumps up Hugo Chavez across the Caribbean Sea, who reaches across the Amazon to empower Evo Morales in Bolivia. Each one imitates the other, hoping to please the other and become more powerful by using their respective resources to their advantage. Oil is obviously the issue in Venezuela as well as Bolivia where oil industries were recently nationalized. During the Cold War as similar chain of command existed in the Arab World, though remarkably more fragmented as regional leaders often competed for leadership roles, extending from Nasser to Yemenite revolutionaries to Boumediene to Qaddafi to Asad to Saddam to Arafat. After 1979, secular nationalist leaders fell out of favor and the ideal leaders became religious militants like Khomeini, Yassin, Nasrallah, and so on. Today the major force in the region is Iran, and Ahmadinejad, and the chain of command goes from Ahmadinejad (Iran) to Asad (Syria) to Nasrallah (Hezb Allah) to the Iraqi and Palestinian insurgents and those at the top seek to expand it to Algeria. Bouteflika, has not shown a strong desire to align with Islamist movements outside of rhetoric, and even then only briefly. But I believe that Iran, whose ties with Chavez, the Nasser of Latin America, are strong, is seeking to entangle Algeria into its web of intra-Muslim imperialism by way of Venezuela.

On Monday, May 15, 2006, Hugo Chavez landed in Algiers for an official “working visit”. It has been remarked that the Venezuelan president and the Algerian president share a similar “socialist-style political roots” and on key foreign policy issues, most of which were hallmarks of Algeria????????s old Cold War foreign policy (especially the issues of the Western Sahara and Palestine, let us also not forget that both states were members of the non-aligned movement). Not least on the negotiating table is the issue of oil and natural gas, resources that neither country is lacking to any degree. There is talk of the two countries opening joint operations between their state owned oil companies. This is Chavez????????s third visit to Algeria. He seems to be in the mood to learn from the silver haired Bouteflika, stating that Algeria “has a lot more experience regarding gasses” and that his country can learn a lot from Algeria on the matter. As the Algerian daily El Watan has noted, Chavez????????s line is “socialism and anti-imperialism,” not much different from the sort of things Algerian presidents used to rail on about in their speeches. Bouteflika is not known for such activities, his style of speaking is too boring. But nevertheless, old habits die hard and every once in a while Bouteflika can be heard touting this line. But in recent years Algeria????????s relations with the West, the United States in particular, have been amiable, and far from hostile, what with American troops training in the Algerian Sahara alongside their Algerian counterparts and all. Not to mention Algeria????????s cooperation with NATO and the EU on security matters.

Military cooperation is not on the table by any means. But it would be a shame, as I have said previously, for Algeria to end up adopting the foreign policy or rhetoric of a foreign state. This visit does not seem to signal this, but it does strike me as being a part of something bigger. Chavez is not Iran????????s enemy, nor is he simply on good terms with the Islamic Republic. He????????s deep under its sheets, and the two countries are trying to woo Algeria. Russia, the United States, the EU and Iran and Venezuela have all been trying to get Algeria on their side in recent months to varying degrees of success. The United States???????? efforts have not been at full strength, which is a pity. It would behoove the US to move to keep Algeria within its orbit before it is snapped up into the so-called “Axis of Oil” to quote that prolific columnist. Algeria????????s recent reforms have taken her a long way, and it would be an utter shame to see her fall back into the Third Worldist trap.

I see Algeria as a person who has just gotten out of a rough prison stint. Algeria went in because it ran with a bad crown; Nasser, Castro, Mao, Tito and the whole bit, and got caught up in the round up with failed policies adopted from far off lands with little in common with the local fauna. Algeria????????s time was tough, shackled by socialist restrictions on movement and expression, and then maimed by Islamist thugs in its federal “pound me in the ass” prison cell. In 1999, after the Civil War was concluded, Algeria got out and started on a new, cleaner path. The reminisce of its old crowd is still out there though, and the club has got new members. There are other 21st Century temptations out there as well, like becoming a client to the West or regressing into the one party system or Islamic state model of rule. But Algeria is, and must remain, determined to stay its own course, and do what is best for Algeria and Algerians and its region as well as the world. The neo-Third World model is not viable for Algeria or any other country. Last year????????s revolution in Lebanon was proof that this ideology and trend can be avoided and rejected peacefully. Algeria can build itself as a pillar to the development of the developing world, but only if it remains consistent at home and abroad, keeping up with its reforms at home and remaining on good terms with all states while not becoming the property of those states. As the Algerian national anthem (Qassaman) says, let us swear by the lightening that destroys, that we are soldiers in revolt for truth, and on our shoulders we will raise the standard we are resolved that Algeria should live. Not that Algeria should be dissolved into the client of some other state, not that Algeria????????s path to enlightenment and liberalism will be clouded by religious fanaticism or flashy rhetoric from Iran, Latin America, or anywhere else. All nations have the right to peruse their interests, and not be bullied into rejecting policies and alliances that would be beneficial to them. Nations may give offers, and nations may reject them. Let????????s hope that Algeria rejects Iran and Venezuela????????s offers and continues on the path of democratization, non-aggression, and true non-alignment.