Between France and Algeria, the time of de -escalation has not yet come. Each week its torments. On March 18, Bruno Retailleau chose, in the name of secularism, not to go to the breakdown of the fast of Ramadan at the Great Mosque of Paris. Drama. Two days later, the rector of the Grande Mosque de Paris chose an Algerian media, TSA, to respond to the Minister of the Interior. An additional sign of “the glaciation phase” dissected by the former Minister Delegate to the Minister of Armed Forces and Veterans, Jean-Louis Thiériot, in the interview he grants us.
The deputy, member of the National Defense Commission and the Armed Forces, And support by Bruno Retailleau in the race for the presidency of the Republicans, does not mince his words. “It is unlikely that Algeria will come back to its position, says Jean-Louis Thiériot. For the simple reason that without the French adversary and the use of colonial memory, the Algerian government would be well embarrassed to justify the very difficult economic situation of the country which, 60 years after independence, can only be the consequence of the management of the Algerian economy by the Algerian authorities.”
L’Express: Algeria rejected a list of Algerian nationals on Monday to expel submitted by France. What to deduce apart from proof of our helplessness?
Jean-Louis Thiériot: You have to put things back in a slightly broader context. The Algerian government from the FLN, which has carefully eliminated any opposition, needs to rally its population to refer to an external opponent, it is the “memory rent” mentioned by Emmanuel Macron. The situation with Algeria has been degraded for a long time. Let us remember the arrest of Boualem Sansal in November, comments from President Tebboune in December from an extreme hardness against France, or the fact that was restored, in the Algerian national anthem, a verse of anti-France hatred. The degree of symbolic violence is extremely strong.
Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised by the decision taken by the Algerian government. It is not us who choose the opponent, it is he who chooses us. We are now facing the clear choice of Algiers not to comply with the agreements of international law.
Under these conditions, why strive to demand from the Algerian authorities that they take up their illegally present nationals on French soil?
The Mulhouse drama threw a raw light on the fact that not to take up the nationals under OQTF had direct consequences on the security of the French. Today some Algerians under OQTF are a threat to our security. To try nothing is to consider that we must, in principle, lower the pavilion. We absolutely want to maintain a singular relationship with Algeria. But if it doesn’t go well, well it’s not going well!
“” “It seems very complicated to have a power policy vis-à-vis Putin and such a policy of weakness towards Tebboune»
With Morocco, relations are more than standardized. This was not the case five years earlier. Reconciliation with Algeria can happen. We all dream of real reconciliation, comparable to this highlight between François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl in Verdun. In the meantime, our relationship is a chimera that gives an impression of weakness. It seems very complicated to have a power policy vis-à-vis Putin and such a policy of weakness towards Tebboune.
What objective should we pursue now, do you think?
If the objective is to obtain the resumption of Algerian nationals illegally present on the national territory, I fear that we are wrong. I hear the diplomats say that we will only get there by a small steps policy. Perhaps, but the situation has become so avenue … It is unlikely that Algeria will come back to its position. For the simple reason that without the French adversary and the use of the satiety of colonial memory, the Algerian government would be well embarrassed to justify the very difficult economic situation of the country which, 60 years after independence, can only be the consequence of the management of the Algerian economy by the Algerian authorities. So the question is rather: what is the issue? A triple symbolic confrontation. First, a country, a people, France and the French have the right not to be humiliated publicly.
Second, in the current international world which is that of reaffirming power, how do you want our diplomacy and the voice of France to be taken seriously if we are not able to go further in the response? Reacting is a way of not weakening our voice in the world.
Finally, the third symbolic element, the words of the former Algerian minister and ambassador Abdelaziz Rahabi who declared a few days ago: “Our problem is with the right, not with France.” It is an interference in French domestic policy. In view of these elements, we have no choice but the graduated response claimed by Bruno Retailleau.
Are you optimistic about the results of such a response?
I do not expect miracles, whatever the degree of response, but France cannot be injured by another country.
You have to see the time long. Today, we are going towards a period of glaciation that started when we got closer to Morocco. We can be confronted with this for a few years but keep in mind that Algeria is not an essential economic partner of France. We do not depend on Algerian gas and exchanges with Algiers represent less than 1 % of our trade. France does not put itself in a difficult situation.
Should we assume a break in diplomatic relations?
We have a whole range of responses. Let us look at the restoration of the bond of visas for diplomatic passports, let us look at the question of goods ill-acquired by the Algerian nomenklatura, let us question ourselves on the regime of special agreements on social security-I recall that the Algerians are treated in this matter like French which is not the case of any other Maghreb country. If France still has an ambassador to Algeria, the reverse is not true.
The suspension of the 1968 agreement agitated public debate. Are you in favor of its suspension?
What would his suspension be used for? If you think she will suddenly restore the consular leaves, in my opinion, we are wrong. Put Marine Le Pen or Eric Ciotti to business, you will have magnificent round effects but, in the end, they will not decide President Tebboune any more to change policy. It should not be excluded. It must be accepted that only time, the duration of sanctions, allow you to move forward. At a phase of glaciation, always succeeds a warming phase.
The only truly restrictive sanction would be the interruption of private money payments from France to Algeria. According to the information I have, about 6 billion euros is sent every year from individual to individual and this represents a real stability factor for Algeria in the economic crisis situation which is theirs. So their interruption could have social consequences likely to move the lines. But it seems to me that the legality of the measure is limited because the European Union prohibits it except exceptional circumstances linked to disturbances of public order. It is to be examined.
Should we fear the reactions of the Algerian diaspora in France?
I have two principles on this subject. The French of Algerian origin are French and they must be considered as French, so I refuse to a a priori trial. If this concern leads to the fact that we do nothing, it means that we have reached the ultimate degree of submission, and this is a political fault.
We have internal security forces to respond to this risk. We are aware of the activism of a certain number of agents from Algerian services.
A high official of Bercy was arrested for a case of espionage and facilitation of clandestine sectors, it is not acceptable. How far can all of this manipulate the diaspora? It is a risk to integrate but we are supposed to be able to do with it.
On November 1, 2024, the French State recognized that Larbi Ben M’hidi, defender of the independence of Algeria, had been assassinated by French soldiers in 1957. Fifteen days later, Boualem Sansal was arrested at Algiers airport. Has Emmanuel Macron has been on the wrong track by emphasizing memorial politics?
I will not pronounce a judgment, one never went on to do an act of truth. But to do it without certainty that this responds to a form of demand leads to the situation we know. The response of the Algerian authorities in the face of this strong and free memorial gesture is the arrest of Boualem Sansal fifteen days later. As the president would say, “we cannot say that it is a failure but it did not work”.
In 2017, Emmanuel Macron described colonization as “crime against humanity”. In 2021, he said that the Algerian system was built on “a memorial rent”. What do you understand about the presidential speech on Algeria?
I did not study biblical exegesis. I don’t know how to read it. Believing today that memorial will be enough to restore confidence is a mistake.
Bruno Retailleau chose not to go to the Great Mosque in Paris for the break of the fast. Is it appropriate in the context of tensions with Algeria?
I think it would have been inappropriate to go. The great mosque of Paris is the relay of the Algerian government. When one is confronted with a country which, in violation of international law, refuses to resume 60 of its nationals, there are places where it is not decent to go. We would have accused Bruno Retailleau of double language.
.