Unexpectedly, and against its government's and people's wishes, it was Algeria that stole the headlines from Mali after the hostage crisis in the remote In Amenas oil refinery.
The hostage takers, the so-called ‘Blood Signatories’, claimed it was in response to the French military intervention in Mali in order to push back extremist rebels who took over large parts of the country. France’s unilateral intervention in Mali, without a UN mandate, which led to the hostage taking was another classic example of a western military intervention to combat terrorism resulting in more terrorism.
The reactions of British politicians and media were classic as well. They initially criticised the Algerian government for using force without negotiating with the captors and without consulting the British or the French – who we’re supposed to believe have more competent forces than the Algerians – before deciding to act with force that put the lives of western hostages at risk.
It is rather hypocritical of the British and French to criticise the Algerian government given that the British said several times that they do not negotiate with terrorists. They have previously refused to pay ransoms to free hostages, which resulted in their deaths. Additionally, a French attempt to free a hostage in Somalia using force led to his death only days before the hostage crisis began in Algeria.
Moreover, the Algerian government’s decision to allow French warplanes to use its airspace in its raids on Mali has been unpopular as well. Allowing Nato troops on its soil was going to be unpopular, especially when France – the former colonial power in Algeria and Mali – killed more than one million Algerians in 132 years of colonial rule. The British colonial legacy in the region, past and present, was not going to make the situation any better.
However, while their initial comments could be considered racist, as the situation developed British officials decided to acknowledge that the Algerians are well experienced in fighting terrorism.
What’s more disturbing, though, is describing the terrorists who carried out the attack as Islamists. It is true that they were born Muslims, but their acts are incompatible with Islam. The leader of the Blood Signatories, Belmokhtar, is involved in criminal activities such as smuggling and kidnapping for ransom. As a teenager he spent some time in Afghanistan fighting with the Mujahedeen, who received finance and training from America, against the Soviets. Remember that Osama bin Laden was an ally of the US in Afghanistan during the 1980s, where the CIA was happy to help those who fought against the Soviets. Once the fight against the ‘Reds’ was over, many of these men, including Belmokhtar, went back to their countries and caused mayhem. In fact, an overlooked fact about al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups is that the vast majority of their victims are Muslims.
Furthermore, some experts on the region believe that the risk of terror attacks on Europe coming from that region is exaggerated as extremist groups loosely affiliated to al-Qaeda are fragmented and become more interested in fighting the governments of their own countries. In reality, the actions of these groups give western media plenty of ammunition to attack Islam, which makes al-Qaeda more of threat to Islam than the west.
For now, the right thing to do is to support the Arab Spring in order to bring more democracy to the region, which will make it possible to address social and political issues by the ballot, not by the bullet.
Mohammed Samaana is a freelance writer based in Belfast.
