Do we approach the end of a taboo? In a statement following an interministerial committee on immigration, François Bayrou threatened, this Wednesday, February 26, to question the 1968 agreements with Algeria. If the Prime Minister insisted on the lack of “climbing” will with the country, he announced that Paris was going to ask Algiers “that all the agreements be re -examined and the way in which they are executed”, within one “month, six weeks”. An ultimatum “rejected” by Algiers this Thursday. Lahouari Addi, researcher (triangle, CNRS, ENS Lyon) and associate professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), nevertheless imagines a possible ground between the two countries, which would have too much to lose a final break. Interview.
L’Express: In an intervention that took place after an interministerial committee on immigration on February 26, François Bayrou threatened to question the 1968 agreements. What do you think will be the effects of this declaration?
The French government is put under pressure by public opinion following the Mulhouse attack perpetrated by an Algerian who has been the subject of an OQTF and which Algeria refused to resume. The Algerian government can hardly escape the request to accept its expelled nationals since it itself fights illegal immigration. Navy patrols often arrest the makeshift boats of clandestine immigration candidates. It is true that sometimes the airport authorities refuse the expelled individuals of which they are not certain that they are Algerians. But when the concerned has papers attesting to its citizenship, it is difficult to refuse it.
However, there was an example of the influencer “Doualemn”, whose comments on Tiktok had led to a decision of the prefect of Hérault to withdraw his residence permit and to expel him to Algeria. Arrived on his soil on January 9, he was immediately sent back to France by the authorities, despite his Algerian nationality …
This case is different. This man has a certificate of stay in France and there was a procedure in progress against him. Moreover, the French judge who canceled the expulsion decree of the Minister of the Interior implicitly agreed to the Algerian authorities. But the Mulhouse attack, where there was death of a man, is embarrassing for the Algerian authorities insofar as they did not accept it when it was expelled. The repeated refusal of the Algerian government to regain its citizens in an irregular situation is incomprehensible for French opinion and even for Algerian opinion.
Lahouari Addi
You seem strangely optimistic. Do the weeks of tensions between Paris and Algiers not worry you?
You have to remain measured and realistic. In his intervention this Wednesday, François Bayrou repeated several times: “We do not want climbing”. Neither Paris nor Algiers have in reality interest in a break between the two countries. France is the most practical European gateway to Algeria, which cannot afford to isolate itself. In addition, human flows between the two societies are much denser than relations between the two states, which is an anomaly. I would be very surprised that, despite his displayed voluntarism, François Bayrou wants to question the family reunification allowed by the 1968 agreements. It should be remembered that the right -wing parties, in particular the coalition to which François Bayrou belongs, do not want to awaken the electoral deposit of the suburbs likely to mass voting for rebellious France. I remain convinced that converging objective interests will participate in the appeasement between the two capitals.
What do you think of the French decision to restriction of traffic and access for certain Algerian dignitaries? Can it be effective?
There was an agreement under the chairmanship of Sarkozy which allows Algerian dignitaries, their families and their friends to go to France with a diplomatic passport, which exempts them from requesting a visa. The measure announced by François Bayrou to refuse these real-false diplomatic passports will be welcomed very favorably not the Algerians who are struggling to have a visa to visit parents. But the question of efficiency can actually arise. The people concerned are financially easy and will go to France with visas issued by Italy or Spain. The dignitaries would however be embarrassed if Paris decided to reveal their bank accounts. But that would be equivalent to a declaration of war – in the sense of true rupture – symbolic, that neither Paris nor Algiers really want to see arriving.
That being said, the Algerian government is obviously embarrassed by this measure which said to the Algerian opinion that the diplomatic passport of the State is used for the private holidays in France of the nomenklatura and the families of the generals. Beneading discussions will take place to conclude a market. The French government will continue to recognize these real-false diplomatic passports against acceptance by the Algerian government to accept its expulsable citizens.
On both sides of the Mediterranean, there is a succession of declarations between the French Minister of the Interior Bruno Retailleau and President Tebboune. The latter, on February 2, said in opinion: “Everything that is Retailleau is doubtful”. What do you think of this duel?
In the eyes of Algerian opinion, Bruno Retailleau is from the extreme right, which makes Tebboune easy to criticize it. By criticizing it, he scraps with the old nostalgic right of French Algeria. Thus Tebboune does nationalist escalation to hide his unpopularity. At the same time, in France, Bruno Retailleau cannot change position – he has his own convictions and speaks to his own electorate. We are therefore in a situation of obvious tension, where nobody wants to give in not to lose face. But I am convinced that the reason of state will prevail on both sides of the Mediterranean. The Algerian government will eventually yield, by granting the consular pass. The litigation will be resolved behind the scenes to show that the other party has sold.
Lahouari Addi
Nevertheless, Algiers will still criticize in Paris its position on Western Sahara. And there will always be the question of the incarceration of Boualem Sansal …
These questions are to be discussed in a different way. First, it seems to me that the Algerian government has settled on this question relating to the position of France on Western Sahara. The Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati, whose father is Moroccan and the Algerian mother, went to Western Sahara last week without the government or the press in Algiers having reacted beyond measure. The Algerian government has realized that France decides on its foreign policy even if it regrets that it does not comply with the resolution of the United Nations on the independence of Western Sahara. Realism has penetrated Algiers’s position on the subject.
Regarding Boualem Sansal, the problem is different. He is first of all political. Then he is diplomatic: Sansal is Franco-Algerian, and considered to be Algerian in Algeria. He was guilty by saying that part of the west of Algeria belongs to Morocco. In a democratic regime, he would have been invited to explain himself in a contradictory public debate. But the Algerian regime being what it is, the government which proclaims to be nationalist, could not allow such declarations to pass. In addition, the majority of Algerian opinion is fiercely hostile to Sansal’s statements and is favorable to its imprisonment. Sansal probably thought he was protected by his notoriety, and also by the fact that he was an ally of the regime in the fight against Islamists. He forgot that in Algeria freedom of expression is very limited, even for the friends of the regime. However, I remain convinced that, behind the scenes, negotiations will allow his release. Algiers will eventually release it for health reasons. Algeria has no assets or international allies to deal with France whose media power is capable of harming the image of the regime abroad.
When we talk about “Algiers” or “of the Algerian regime”, do we always speak of President Tebboune? Who today really decides in Algeria?
The Algerian regime is based on an unwritten rule. I say “unwritten” because it does not exist in the Constitution: the army is a source of power. She chooses the president who is required to obey the general orientations she decides. It gives the political police, which depends on the Ministry of Defense, the mission of domesticating the parties which in return receive seats in the National Assembly through rigged elections. Any political party which calls into question the principle that the army is a source of power is prohibited. At the same time, this domination of the real power of generals over the formal power of civilians that it coopte is not free from divisions. The apparent strong man of the regime is today the general Saïd Chengriha, the chief of staff of the armies. But he must take into account the balance of power inside the military hierarchy which has 120 or 150 generals. They do not necessarily have the same interests and the same point of view on the sustainability of the regime. There are divisions hidden from the opacity of the regime whose survival depends on the solidarity of officers of officers and … on the price of oil on the international market.
.