In his recent interview with the French newspaper Le Point, Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune revealed controversial positions, ranging from accepting normalization with Israel to avoid angering the Trump administration to an implicit admission of arming the Polisario Front. These statements are not mere casual remarks but carry deep political and diplomatic signals, reflecting the challenges Algeria faces in its regional and international relations. What are the real dimensions behind Tebboune’s words? Do these statements reflect a shift in Algeria’s foreign policy?
Normalization with Israel: Between Fear of Trump and Political Realism
Tebboune surprised many by discussing the acceptance of normalization with Israel, suggesting that it might be necessary to avoid displeasing the Trump administration. This stance appears contradictory to Algeria’s traditional discourse, which has strongly supported the Palestinian cause and rejected normalization with Israel for decades. Does this shift reflect a change in Algeria’s strategic priorities? Or is it merely a diplomatic tactic to achieve temporary gains?
It is clear that Tebboune is trying to strike a delicate balance between maintaining relations with the United States, a key economic and military partner, and preserving his image as an Arab leader supporting traditional Arab causes. But the question arises: Can Algeria justify normalization with Israel while the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories continues? And will this stance affect Algeria’s regional standing, especially in its rivalry with Morocco for leadership in North Africa?
Moroccan-Israeli Military Exercises: Algeria’s Chess Game
In an attempt to highlight Morocco’s “hostility,” Tebboune pointed out that the Moroccan military conducts joint exercises with the Israeli army near the Algerian border, calling it a “contradiction to good neighborliness.” However, he omitted the fact that these exercises were part of the “African Lion” maneuvers organized by the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces in collaboration with the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), which included participation from several U.S.-allied countries, including Tunisia.
This statement raises questions about Tebboune’s motives: Was he trying to exploit the Israeli issue to tarnish Morocco’s image? Or was he seeking to strengthen Algeria’s position as a country supporting Arab causes in the face of normalization? More importantly, how can this focus on Moroccan-Israeli military exercises be interpreted when Algeria itself conducts joint military exercises with Russia, a strategic rival of the United States?
Arming the Polisario: A Frank Admission or a Political Hint?
In one of the most controversial statements, Tebboune admitted that Algeria is currently refraining from supplying weapons to Polisario Front elements, suggesting that his country is the primary source of arms for the separatist militias. This admission, though indirect, places Algeria in an awkward position, especially as it claims not to be a “party to the conflict” over Western Sahara.
A central question arises here: If Algeria is arming the Polisario, how can it justify its role as a neutral mediator in the conflict? And does this admission reflect a shift in Algeria’s strategy regarding the issue, particularly in light of increasing international pressure for a peaceful resolution?
Algerian-Moroccan Relations: A 20th-Century Conflict in the 21st Century
Tebboune seems to still live in the shadow of past conflicts, recalling the 1963 Sand War to justify current tensions with Morocco. He also revisited Morocco’s 1994 decision to impose visa requirements on Algerians, ignoring that Rabat abolished this measure over 20 years ago. This approach reflects the Algerian system’s entrenchment in the memories of the past rather than looking toward the future.
But the most important question is: Can Algeria and Morocco move beyond these historical disputes and focus on building cooperative relations in the face of shared regional and international challenges? Especially since Tebboune himself acknowledged that the current situation is “abnormal,” describing it as a “chess game,” while expressing his desire to end it.
General Context: Algeria Between the Past and the Future
Tebboune’s statements reflect hesitation and contradictions in Algeria’s foreign policy. On one hand, he tries to present Algeria as a country supporting traditional Arab causes, such as the Palestinian issue, and on the other, he seems willing to make concessions that may conflict with these principles, such as normalization with Israel.
At the same time, Tebboune appears to struggle with adapting to regional and international changes, remaining stuck in 20th-century conflicts rather than addressing 21st-century challenges. This situation places Algeria in a dilemma, especially in its rivalry with Morocco, which has successfully strengthened its relations with the United States and Israel, while Algeria seems caught between the past and the future.
Conclusion: Can Algeria Break Free from the Dilemma?
Tebboune’s interview with Le Point reveals the significant challenges Algeria faces in its foreign policy. Between trying to please the United States and preserving traditional Arab principles, and managing the conflict with Morocco while supporting the Polisario, Algeria seems trapped in a complex web of contradictions.
The lingering question is: Can Algeria reformulate its foreign policy to align with current changes? Or will it continue to live in the shadow of past conflicts, potentially hindering its progress on the regional and international stage? The answer to this question will determine Algeria’s future in the coming years.
