Union paralysed in the face of latest Algerian slaughter

Date: 02/10/1997

THE European Union's inertia this month in the face of the most appalling atrocities in Algeria's five-year-old civil war has once again highlighted its inability to conduct an effective foreign policy.

Despite last week's calls for peace by Islamic Salvation Army (AIS) leader Madani Mezrag, the escalation of violence in recent weeks - which culminated in the massacre of 200 women and children - has left the country's population terrified and with little cause for optimism.

This is hardly the climate for peaceful investment and cooperation that the EU promised it would bring to the region when it launched its much-heralded Euro-Mediterranean partnership in Barcelona in 1995.

Yet the Union has done nothing, save declare its disapproval of the conflict. Critics argue that the only concrete action that most EU member states have taken, withdrawing their ambassadors from Algiers amid fears for their safety, has actually weakened the Union's ability to influence events.

Given the disastrous implications a full-scale Algerian conflict could have for EU foreign investment, gas supplies and its own Algerian communities, this inaction appears - on the face of it - inexplicable.

“There has been an almost total lack of discussion of Algeria in the Council of Ministers,” admitted a senior EU diplomat. “The countries that you might have expected to raise the issue have said nothing, and the others are waiting until they do.”

Most noticeable by its silence has been France, whose long and troubled history with its ex-colony has given it an expertise on Algerian affairs that few of its partners can match.

“What can we do?” asked one Paris diplomat. “This is an extremely complex issue, especially for France. As soon as Paris says anything, the Algerians accuse us of interfering. But if we say nothing, we are also attacked. France is caught in a trap between moral responsibility and diplomatic sensitivity. We would prefer the European Union to take action.”

But with no other country willing to take the lead, the Union finds itself yet again supine in the face of foreign calamity.

Spain, with less emotional baggage but a strong interest in keeping the Mediterranean region stable, has equally failed to make any concrete suggestions as to how the EU might respond.

“It is not easy to find a viable solution which would be well received by everyone,” explained a spokesman for Madrid's foreign ministry, who added: “As Abel Matutes said to his Algerian counterpart in New York, we condemn any act of terrorism and argue for political reform. But any solution must come from within the country.”

Northern EU diplomats, when questioned, show an almost total reluctance to contemplate firm action.

“The situation has been broached in various political committees and through COREU (the common foreign policy's nerve system of intergovernmental telexes), and there is considerable alarm. But there has been no discussion of concrete ideas,” said one.

Even Luxembourg - which as current holder of the EU presidency, might be expected to take a lead - has proved unwilling to act. “The Algerians should find a solution to this grave crisis themselves, through completing the process of reform as much on the political as the economic level,” said Development Minister Georges Wohlfart recently.

In the meantime, the European Commission awaits signals from the Algiers government that it is ready to hold a second round of negotiations on an EU-Algeria association agreement and says nothing.

Defenders of this studied inactivity argue that silence is the only viable policy option available to the Union.

Previous efforts to bring the Algerian government and its Islamic opposition to the table have failed completely, and President Liamine Zeroual firmly rejects any external interference.

“This is an Algerian problem which must be resolved between Algerians,” said Hisham Kafi, the country's spokesman at its EU mission.

“The United Nations also tried to get mixed up in this affair, but the government said 'no'. If we accept international negotiation, then we also accept that the government and the GIA (the Armed Islamic Group) are on an equal footing. That is unacceptable,” he added.

EU diplomats also point out that the situation in Algeria is very different to that in, for example, the Middle East, where there is a dialogue between two legitimate parties and the Union can play a role in brokering a deal.

In Algeria, they say, there is only one legitimate party - the government - facing an illegal terrorist faction.

But the line between rebel and freedom fighter is notoriously difficult to define, especially given Zeroual's cancellation of the Islamists' 1992 election victory. Critics of the Union's apparent neutrality argue that Europe might not have been so silent had an Islamic government outlawed a Christian political movement.

Another flaw in the Union's argument is that serious question marks hang over the actions of the Algerian government itself, amid growing suspicion that - despite its denials - it may have played a role in the recent violence.

“Why is it that some of these murders have taken place close to security positions? Why is it that the military have not been able to protect their population?” asked British Socialist MEP Gary Titley during a recent European Parliament debate.

Given such doubts, some regard the EU's failure to even talk about protecting the Algerian people as a unacceptable display of indifference.

Others suggest it is dictated by self-interest, given Zeroual's willingness to sell gas (Algeria provides 20&percent; of Europe's needs) and buy arms (from countries such as France and the UK). Perhaps an Islamic government would not be so forthcoming.

In addition, EU leaders fear that annoying the wrong people could put their own populations at risk, with the spectre of past bombs on European soil looming large in their thinking.

But however understandable the reasons for inaction, there are many who believe that the Union can no longer afford to take a back seat.

“The EU-Mediterranean partnership cannot continue to ignore the crisis in Algeria,” said Paul Eavis, executive director of think-tank Saferworld. “A country in which 100,000 lives have been lost in conflict since 1992, and in which two out of three young people are unemployed, completely undermines the credibility of the partnership's aim to spread prosperity, peace and stability in North Africa.”

His organisation has called upon the EU to mediate an end to the Algerian conflict, suspend negotiations on the association agreement until the government lifts its ban on the Islamist Salvation Front (FIS), and impose an arms embargo on the country.

Commission sources reply that suspending negotiations on the association agreement would be counter-productive, as the accord itself contains a strong commitment to human rights. “Once the agreement is in force, then we may have something to say,” said one official.

The trouble with this, say critics, is that people are being killed now. By the time the agreement comes into force, it may be too late for hundreds more.

Hopefully, this weekend's call for peace will bring an end to the conflict and provide some justification for the EU's policy of non-involvement.

But even if the rebels do lay down their arms, Algeria's fundamental political problems will remain unresolved. A majority of the country's population still supports the Islamic party and is unlikely to abandon the cause.

This month's municipal elections could provide the spark which ignites the conflict again and, should the Islamists eventually take power, the Union's tacit support of Zeroual may come back to haunt it.