Journal of Diplomacy

By Stacey Emker

The January 2013 hostage crisis in Algeria has heightened concerns over protecting U.S. interests in the region. The terrorist group that seized the gas compound with foreign workers (including U.S. personnel) began during Algeria’s decade long civil conflict and is a splinter group of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Algeria’s internal environment contributes to its precarious atmosphere and a growing international unease as economic and political grievances have initiated public unrest. Although Algeria’s economic position is currently stable due to high gas prices, the wealth has not reached the lower levels of the population and unemployment, high food prices, and housing shortages have plagued the country. Algeria’s current political system is dominated by a strong presidency and security apparatus, however, inherent tensions within the elite establishment could indicate potential fracture points if additional pressures are placed on the government. Given the volatile environment, a more thorough analysis of Algeria’s long-term internal conflict is warranted to better understand the conflict today.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Algeria as the country has been inundated by the brutality of these tactics for almost fifty years. At the end of the Second World War, France ignored the increasing demands for reform from its non-French citizens. Feelings of disenfranchisement instigated the formulation of the National Liberation Front (FLN) and its struggle for independence beginning in November 1954. In 1962, Algerians achieved independence. The National Constituent Assembly-comprised of all FLN members- replaced the provisional government and formed the Algerian Republic in September 1963. Following this, the constitution was ratified making the FLN the only party in the government and electing Ahmed Ben Bella as president. The brief break in political violence was shattered by a military coup d’état in June 1965. The overthrow of President Ben Bella was orchestrated by Colonel Houari Boumedienne who then took power. President Boumedienne created a socialist system in Algeria, and made Islam the state religion with a new constitution in November 1975.

President Boumedienne’s successor, Colonel Chadli Ben Djedid, began to explore political pluralism and liberalize the economy in 1978. However, the single-party government system remained and a decline in oil prices from 1985 to 1986 put pressure on the government to institute a series of austerity measures. As a result, there was an increase in public unrest, and a series of strikes and riots were initiated by the General Union of Algerian Workers. The Chadli government imposed a state of emergency resulting in numerous deaths and arrests, however, he eventually attempted to appease the public t by amending the constitution to allow non-FLN members to form political parties. When an Islamic party appeared to be next in line for power, the Algerian government cancelled the parliamentary elections in January 1992. This provoked additional protests and violent attacks by Islamic militias on military and police forces, and subsequently Algerian citizens. Most notably, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) led the guerrilla movement against the secular government. In response to the insurgent attacks, the Algerian government enacted another state of emergency that resulted in a violent crackdown on the militias and any individuals that appeared to be supporters. By 1998, members of the GIA sought to reform its modus operandi to avoid indiscriminate killings and to win over support from the local population. Consequently, the group splintered and formed the Group Salafist of Pour la Predication el le Combat (GSPC). While GSPC drew initial support, the election of President Abdalaziz Bouteflika in April 1999 brought about changes in the Algerian government. Both President Bouteflika’s amnesty law, a program that allowed citizens to exchange their weapons for amnesty, and counterterrorism program drove the GSPC out of the limelight. With this, the GSPC renovated its strategy to remain relevant and officially aligned itself with al-Qaeda in 2006.

While the Algerian government has sought to lead a coordinated regional counterterrorism strategy in North-West Africa, the results have been mixed and other attempts by the U.S. to institute capacity-building programs to counter terrorism has focused solely on Algeria’s West African neighbors. In addition, a unilateral approach by the U.S. to the regional threat presents significant risks and is not a viable option given Algeria’s staunch resistance to foreign intervention. Although the Algerian government permitted the U.S. to employ a Predator surveillance drone during the siege of the gas plant, the U.S. should not expect its cooperation in an expanded drone campaign. Overall, instability in Algeria accompanied by the underlying tensions of anti-colonial sentiment has put U.S. policymakers in perplexing situation on how to address AQIM.

*****

Stacey is a second year master’s candidate at the Whitehead School of Diplomacy and a Senior Editor for the Journal. The photo above is from US Army Africa.

By Joe Dalessio

Starting today, March 12, 2013, the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church will enter into conclave to elect the next pope and leader of the Roman Catholic Church. There has been much speculation surrounding the election of the next pope, and Catholics all around the world are submitting their two cents on who they think the successor of Saint Peter should be. This discussion has mostly revolved around matters of church, doctrine of the faith, or the direction of the church. Regardless of who Catholics think should be selected, the next pope will have a unique and profound opportunity to affect international relations.

It is simply outstanding to consider that a man, who as a cardinal has a responsibility for a number of dioceses but little international experience, will be catapulted on to the international stage and wield considerable influence over the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics. Now this is not the Church of the Middle Ages when monarchs followed the will of the Holy See, but the successor of Saint Peter does carry significant influence and is an actor within the international system.

Both of the last two popes, Blessed John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,  have had sizable impacts on the international realm. John Paul II worked tirelessly against the communist Soviet Union and the occupation of his home, Poland. There are many factors that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union but John Paul II was undoubtedly a tireless opponent of the Soviet Union. Later on in his papacy John Paul II made an unprecedented apology to those of the Islamic faith for the Crusades. John Paul II also had a profound impact on Jewish – Christian relations by promoting dialogue between the two faiths, and it was under John Paul II that Israel and the Vatican established diplomatic relations.

Benedict XVI was no different from John Paul II in that he sought to build diplomatic relations with other states and to positively affect the international relations. One of the more publicized and criticized moments of Benedict XVI was when he quoted a Byzantine emperor which seemed to imply that Islam was only spread through violence. However, this quote was taken out of context, and Benedict issued an apology for the tension it created. Despite this episode, Benedict has made great strides with the Vatican’s relations with Islamic states, most notably Saudi Arabia. Although most Catholics still practice in secret in Saudi Arabia, relations reached a high point when Saudi King Abdullah visited the Vatican in 2007; this visit continued to growth of interreligious understand of the two faiths.

Now the Vatican does not represent any of the Western states and diplomatic relations with the Vatican may not be all that significant in terms of foreign policy success. What it does represent and what it does affect is the relationship between the East and West; between the Western Christian Countries and the Islamic East or even states such as China. The pope will not hold great influence over what the heads of states decide, nor should he, but as the head of the largest international organization and the leader of one of the largest faiths, it is important for him to positively influence interreligious understanding. This will have an impact on the future relations between the East and West. So whether Catholics think the next pope should be a reformer or a conservative, one thing is certain; the next pope will impact international relations either positively or negatively.

*****

Joe is a blog writer for the Journal and a first year master’s candidate at the Whitehead School.

By Joe Dalessio

When I first applied to the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, it never, and I mean never, crossed my mind that I would be writing a piece on Dennis Rodman, aka “The Worm”. Yet here I am, writing about Dennis Rodman and North Korea. Like so many others who grew up watching the Chicago Bulls, everyone knows who Dennis Rodman is. He was the eccentric player with the crazy tattoos, the crazy hair, and an incredible ability to pull down rebounds but who could not make a layup if his life depended on it. I think he may have even tried to marry himself at one point but someone should fact check that for me. Regardless, Dennis Rodman’s recent visit to North Korea, as strange as it may sound, was somewhat thought provoking, though maybe in more of a humorous way.

I had two thoughts about this trip. The first revolved around CNN’s conjecture that Kim Jung Un probably had a poster of Dennis Rodman on his wall growing up. Of all the great players at that time in the NBA, do you really think that anyone had a poster of Dennis Rodman on his or her wall? For anyone who remembers, there was this player named Michael Jordan who most boys emulated. But for the sake of argument, maybe Kim Jung Un did have a poster of Dennis Rodman on his wall. Well, considering the attention seeking antics Rodman does, it is not the biggest surprise that Rodman may have been on Kim Jung Un’s wall.

Why anyone would want to imitate Rodman when he played with players like Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and Karl Malone is confusing, should we expect anything less from North Korea? This scenario simply describes how the world views North Korea as their actions in the international system do not make sense to many. Now, since I have been so provided with basketball as an analogy, let me stretch it a bit further. Imagine a bunch of kids who are playing a basketball game. One kid calls out, “I get to be Irving ‘Magic’ Johnson,’ another Larry Bird, another Michael Jordan, and then you have the kid who calls out “I want to be Dennis Rodman.” It just simply does not make sense. Now, it may be possible that the kid is just different and Rodman’s crazy side appeals to him. If so, the kid should not be faulted for that.

Forgive me, but I am just going to take the analogy one step further and it may be a poor comparison but no analogy is perfect. Now, imagine that because the kid made the strange choice to be Rodman he is excluded from the game. This is like the West’s foreign policy towards North Korea. Of course the West’s decision entails more than not understanding North Korea; it may have something to do with its aggressive rhetoric towards our allies, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the brutal rule of an authoritarian regime. There is also the fact that, North Korea isolates itself from the world and it is not as simple as the world alienating North Korea.

Ultimately, the lesson learned is no matter how much the Rodman kid is isolated from the basketball game; he is still going to shoot the basketball. No matter what the other kids try, he is able to shoot and even if it is an air ball every time, just like Rodman, he is doing what he wants against all impediments. In this case, the approach to the kid may need to change from trying to isolate him to maybe teaching him how to play better. North Korea has demonstrated that it has nuclear capabilities and now has the technology to launch a satellite. Maybe it is time to think of a new approach to North Korea.

My second thought is how little I was surprised. Dennis Rodman and North Korea have so much in common after all. Dennis Rodman wears a wedding dress to promote his biography and does any outlandish antic to gain media attention. North Korea is no different in the international realm. If you have not heard about North Korea in awhile, you can be sure that at some point soon you will see it in the news; either for an outlandish statement by their government or a more serious matter.

Does Rodman’s visit to North Korea means anything? CNN and other news outlets have been referring to Rodman’s visit with the Harlem Globetrotters as good will ambassador visit. Although it provides for some humorous and thought provoking insight, it means very little. However, most people know this. It does mean one thing. The secret and isolated state of North Korea continues to befuddle Western scholars. Why Rodman?

*****

Joe is a master’s candidate at the Whitehead School and the blog writer for the Journal of Diplomacy.

By Sophia Moropoulos

This time last year the West was looking, maybe even hoping, for a new dichotomy between Turkey and Iran. In the throes of the Arab Spring, Turkey became host to the NATO missile shield and began supporting the Syrian opposition. Iran, in contrast, was in support of the Assad regime, and took the well-placed hint from NATO. In Iraq, while sectarian conflict was on the rise and the US began to withdraw, Turkey and Iran supported opposite parties. In Bahrain, critics chastised the two countries for furthering an age-old Ottoman rivalry.

Turkey has successfully played middle man to the East and West. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, Turkey was continually pro-democratic (versus Iranian anti-Westernism) yet, supported the new Islamic government and refused to get between the US and its neighbor when it came to sanctions. Subsequently, Turkey gained the gas contract with Iran but also began enhancing their relationship with Israel.

Currently, Turkey has proven they will not take an aggressive stance against Iran. This is despite the fact that, Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon would upset the regional balance of power and Turkey has stated as much. Yet, Turkish officials have taken a far more cautious approach than the US. Turkey has continually refused to place sanctions on Iran but has continued opposing their neighbor’s role in Syria.

Basically, nothing has changed between Turkey and Iran. We have to look all the way back to the Ottoman-Qajar War to find a time when these two were in direct conflict. Like any state, especially a liberal democratic one, Turkey is busy maintaining and increasing security. Knowing this, we should not expect Turkey to come to arms against Iran unless it is in their best interest. In essence, because the West is comfortably removed from the Iranian issue and the immediate effects of the Arab Spring; it is difficult for us to see through Turkey’s lens when dealing with Iran.

Perhaps the West should leave well enough alone between Turkey and Iran. Turkey plays a vital role in the Middle East. No one else can have that spot; nobody is even in the market for it. It would seem that it is in the best interest of the West to let Turkey negotiate as they have been. It is evidentially in Turkey’s best interest.

*****

Sophia is a first year master’s candidate at the Whitehead School and a blog writer for the Whitehead Journal.

The video of our panel event on the Iranian Nuclear Program is up. The links and video are below.