APPROACHING ALGERIA ON DIFFAMATION OF RELIGION

UNCLAS ALGIERS 001144 SENSITIVE SIPDIS FROM THE CHARGE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KISL KDEM OPDC AG SUBJECT: APPROACHING ALGERIA ON DIFFAMATION OF RELIGION REF: STATE 128320 ¶1. Algeria's national identity is derived from secular-nationalist and Islamic traditions. Although a nominally secular state, Algeria is nevertheless politically sensitive to domestic Islamic political currents and sensibilities. It is a strong advocate in the OIC and the Africa Group at the UN on issues about which it cares, which include anything having to do with terrorism and regional conflicts. As a country that fought tenaciously to achieve its independence, via a movement that stressed its attachment to Islam as much as its embrace of secular notions of socialism that animated other national liberation movements, Algeria has historically linked the West's confrontation with Islam with the Muslim world's (and Algeria's) struggle against Western imperialism. ¶2. To the best of our knowledge, Algeria has not taken a strong position on defamation of religion beyond associating itself with the Durban conference on racism. Its natural tendency will be to follow the OIC majority. MFA Director General for Political and International Security Affairs Boudjemaa Delma told the Ambassador in October that freedom of speech must respect "sacred symbols" of all religions. He appeared to have had in mind the Danish cartoon affair (which provoked demonstrations here) and any expression seen to ridicule the Prophet Muhammad or other sacred Islamic figures. Algeria joined in the majority decision at Durban I and II and would probably instinctively agree to restrict further speech that denigrates holy figures of all major religions. ¶3. It will be difficult to pry open the Algerian official mind to consider freedom of speech more broadly, to include freedom of individuals to criticize and even ridicule religion. A possible approach would need, at a minimum, to take into account a point made by senior Algerian officials in speeches here and in multilateral fora in Europe: Islam as it is practiced in North Africa today has its roots in the Islamic regime of al-Andalus in today's Spain that promoted tolerance and respect for the rights of Christian and Jewish minorities. Part of the Algerian fondness for this nostalgic perspective is that this country is still recovering from a decade of some of the most savage, religiously inspired terrorism seen in the Middle East and North Africa. Algerian officials often contend, in discussing terrorism, that their country's true religious nature is moderate and tolerant, contrasted with the extremist and violent takfiri ideology that guided armed groups in their bloody struggle of the 1990s. While this idealized historical view presents a possible point of entry for the USG arguing for a larger view of tolerance, we note that Algerian law prohibits public criticism or mockery of religion. ¶4. Any approach on this subject should first make clear to the GOA that the United States, like many of our European allies, will not and cannot constitutionally vote for a resolution or treaty that restricts individual speech in matters of religion. We should make clear that most Western states generally restrict the speech of individuals in matters of religion only when it advocates violence or preaches hatred of other religions. ¶5. In making our case to Algeria, I recommend we make the point that the history of Maghrebi Islam, influenced by the experience of al-Aldalus, up to the age of 19th century nationalism, was an example to the world of tolerance of religious diversity. Algeria, therefore, has a role to play in the debate on religious freedom. However, at the risk of sounding patronizing, we should argue that the pre-modern al-Andalus model of a hegemonic but tolerant Islam has been superseded by the 21st century model of the secular state of law that constitutionally tolerates all religions. Such states cannot and should not impose restrictions on speech of individuals or the press except in the most extreme circumstances, such as incitement to violence. ¶6. To bring in the Department's proposed Action Plan, we may argue that a treaty banning denigration of religion would further deepen the chasm between many Islamic states and the rest of the world. This is in the interest of no one but the extremists, who seek to overthrow those governments in the Muslim world that do not meet their narrow, and unrepresentative, criteria and establish regimes of unequalled intolerance. The best way to fight that extremism is not to ban speech against religion, but to have every country adopt actions roughly parallel to those suggested in the Action Plan, especially implementing anti-discrimination legislation. I would also recommend that the Action Plan expand the section on interfaith efforts to include the encouragement of regular international contact among religious leaders. ¶7. Realistically, these arguments have little chance of swaying minds here. However, the one thing that GOA leaders respond to is high-level contact. We recommend that the Secretary use the momentum generated by her recent meeting with Foreign Minister Medelci in Washington and phone him at a tactically critical moment in the UN process. In the lead-up to that call, Ambassador could engage with MFA Director General Delma to preview our pitch. JORDAN