The conflict between Algerian law enforcement officers and fundamentalists of the Salafite Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) seems to be going through a moment of extreme tension. The latest episode was the murder of two soldiers and two police officers in the governor-ruled territory of Skikda, in eastern Algeria. The number of dead in just the month of June rose to 53 with the victims of this attack. This number appears to clearly contradict the statements made by Algerian Minister of the Interior Yazid Zerhouni in a press conference June 28. He said that at least 200 fundamentalists have put down their weapons in acceptance of the amnesty that went into effect on February 27 following approval of the national peace and reconciliation charter by referendum. This document should bring the Algerian civil war to an end, a war that cost the lives of about 150,000 people between 1992 and 1997. In order to better understand the situation in Algeria, PeaceReporter interviewed Algerian reporter Karim Metref.

How do you explain the distance between the reassuring statements of the minister and the data coming out of the clashes?  

 

The referendum’s data are a lot less clear than what appears. The vote was presented in a specious manner, almost as if placing the people before a choice between peace and war. What were they supposed to do? Moreover, Minister Zerhouni is a master in managing voting. It is only in the centre of Algiers and in the region of Cabilia where the secret services do not have absolute control over the polls, and this is indicative of how credible the referendum results can be. And in any case, many voted for the charter to come into effect, but the turnout was extremely low.

 

 

Absolutely not. After September 11^th many Arab regimes stood in line to gain credit as champions of the fight against the fundamentalism tied to al Qaeda, but there is no proof of this link.  

 

At present, the Algerian government needs terrorism, but in a way different than the past. in the days of the civil war it was necessary to destabilise the population because the real prize to be won was privatisation of state resources. Millions of workers were put in the middle of the street, while a minority took over the country’s wealth. In those days terrorism was a help, and it was not by chance that it struck only in the areas affected by privatisation. Today it plays a different role. It serves to keep the problem alive, to keep control of the country by repressing civil liberties, but neither can one run the risk of scaring off foreign investors, so that the class in power can continue to make money. The situation is very different from the days of the war. At the time there was the Islamic Salvation Army tied to the Front (the Islamic formation that won the 1991 elections), but there were also the militiamen of the Armed Islamic Group, which nobody ever understood from where they came. For many, they were close to the government and served to authorise military repression. Then there were the salifites, true fundamentalists. Today there are about a thousand salifites, and they are the only ones fighting the government. The others reached an agreement, and it is not by chance that the new Algerian premier is Abdelaziz Belkhaden, a man who has always been considered close to the Islamists.

 

If there are no unforeseeable upsets, I think so. The only problem is Bouteflika’s health, and it is probable that Belkhaden is already working on his succession. Actually, even though it is not a proper reform, there is almost some hope that it passes and that Bouteflika stays in office. Otherwise, the struggle for his succession will commence, and I am unable to envision a peaceful result. Too many young people are desperate because of the unemployment and corruption that is gripping this country. And it is on them that the GSPC is exerting its appeal.