The Battle of Algiers - a lesson for us all

 I wrote this short film review in 2007.  I keep going back to it especially in light of France and Macron's hostilities towards the Moslem population I am posting here.  

In the film “The Battle of Algiers” (1966), the director Gillo Pontecorvo depicts the push for independence and the rise of nationalism.  He further demonstrates the oppressive and inhuman manner in which occupying forces treat the natives; a past so much alive today.   Not only is the right of the people taken away from them, but also their dignity.  Pontecorvo strongly condemns colonization with his production of this movie.  

He further suggests that the officials of the French Government were the first ones to commit terrorism, for by definition terrorism is an act of violence against civilians, which the French started by placing a bomb in the Casbah killing innocent women and children. the Algiers were not targeting civilians, only the representatives of the government, that is, the policemen, no civilians had been targeted up to that point.  However, when the commissionaire, a representative of the French government started an act of terror, a political reaction was put into play and the National Liberation Front (FLN) started their bombing campaign.

Pontecorvo makes a point for the Arabs in that they resorted to terror and bombing because they did not have the military advantage of the French army/paratroopers.  He would like us to conclude that the bombing of villages and killing of innocent people by French planes was more deplorable than the suicide bombings[i].   Pontecorvo’s message is clear in that although a military battle was won, and the terrorists eliminated, the French were not able to win the ideological battle, nor were they able to crush the peoples’ hope for freedom and independence. Guns can crush a man’s body but not his spirit.   The people did prevail and 5 years later the ultimate war was won by the people of Algiers.

The irony of this movie is that although it reflects events in the 1950’s (and Algeria got it’s independence in (1962), the same mistakes are being made today.  Iraq is a case in point.  The parallels are alarming.  A client state of the United States, the insurgents are fighting the occupiers (coalition forces), and have succeeded in isolating them.  The U.N., Red Cross and every other humanitarian organization has left the country.  The U.S. army is on the defensive whereas not long ago it bragged of an easy victory.  It wants to leave, but must leave in a face-saving manner.   Just like Col. Mathieu’s analogy, the US thought that if they caught the “head of the tapeworm”, it would be the end of terrorism.  Mathieu eliminated every “terrorist”, yet, five years later, the French were driven out of Algeria; Saddam Hossein was caught, humiliated in public view, and the insurgencies, bombings, and deaths escalated.  

Although The Pentagon uses this movie as an excellent source for training in terrorism and counter-terrorism, in reality the real lesson to be learnt here is we must not be occupiers – we should not underestimate nationalism and national pride – that we cannot impose our political will with our military might.  Unless we learn from history, we are doomed to relive it.  This is precisely what is happening today.   In relating this film to the course, one realizes that we are repeating the same mistakes that the French made in trying to “conquer and master” the Algiers.  Our invasion of Iraq was a mistake in thinking that we can occupy their land.  The U.S. has the strongest military in the world but lacks all moral authority.  It will never win wars. 

What I also took away with me, which may not have been Pontecorvo’s message, is that the United Nations has always been, and continues to be, as to eloquently articulated by George W. Bush, irrelevant.  It failed to back the Algiers after their peaceful, 7-day strike, it divided the land in Palestine, it stood by when hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, it stood by when Iraq gassed Iranians, it stood by when the United States invaded Iraq, and the list goes on. It is always observing, claiming it does not have the power.  But when push comes to shove, and it needs to back a major power, it seems to find the necessary power – it finds relevance.

 

---

[i] This point is conveyed to the audience when  a terror suspect is being questioned by the Western media and he is condemned for suicide bombing.  His answer is “which is worse, the indiscriminate bombing of villages and killing of innocent civilians by French planes or the suicide bombing of police stations? Give us your planes and we will not attack the police stations.”

Shirin Ebadi Poking Her Ugly Head Out - Again!

Calling for sanctions again in this Video    .  This woman who was given a Nobel Peace prize to give her a platform to promote sanctions, interference, and hardships against Iranians so that USisrael can install a puppet in Iran, has a history of working with brutal dictators.  

The Nobel Laureate and I: A Response to 'Shirin Ebadi Prepares for the End'

 

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi's belief that the regime's days in Tehran are numbered is based on optimism; but regrettably, the interview belies her habitual style of distorting reality to her advantage.  It was this unattractive trait that turned the pride I felt in being her interpreter in January 2006 to disappointment, disbelief, and displeasure.

 

It is curious that once again Ebadi, this 'human rights' lawyer, should get herself involved in Iran's nuclear program and opine that the 'leadership is not negotiating in good faith'.  It was her very assessment of Iranians and her source of information which dumbstruck me in 2006 when she stated that the Iranian people didn't support the nuclear program and the supporters we witnessed on television were the 'paid Basij'.   

 

Contrary to this misinformation, the uniting factor in Iran is the nuclear program.  A 2004 poll showed that 75-80% of the Iranians rallied behind the Islamic Republic of Iran in support of its nuclear program including the full fuel cycle.  A fact confirmed in a 2007 poll conducted by the U.S. Institute of Peace.  The latter elaborates that: "Even with the crackdown on liberties, free press, and the increasing oppression in the country, the poll found that 64% of those polled said that US legislation repealing regime change in Iran would not be incentive enough to give up the nuclear program and full fuel-cycle".

 

What is most surprising is that this recipient of a Nobel prize, a lawyer, is totally ignorant of international treaties, although she can be forgiven for not knowing the American Constitution.   Ms. Ebadi recommends that the United States continue its blatant violation of the Algiers Accords -- a bilateral agreement concluded between Iran and the United States, and  use VOA and Radio Farda to reach Iranians inside Iran 'to convince them  that the sanctions are targeted at the regime and not the ordinary Iranians'.

 

If Ms. Ebadi has been 'harassed' by officials in Iran, its perhaps her total disregard for law.   Point I.1 of the Algiers Accord states: “The United States pledge that it is and from now will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”  Per Article VI of the Algiers Accords, the violated party, Iran, has the right to refer the matter to the Tribunal at Hague, the Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice will have jurisdiction.    

 

Further, the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the United States and Iran, which due to its 2/3 majority approval was signed into law and recorded at the United Nations. The linchpin of the Treaty is free trade between the two countries.  Neither party has called to dissolve the Treaty.  Yet, in spite of the Treaty being in full force, sanctions have been imposed on Iran and Ms. Ebadi is encouraging the United States not only to dishonor its own treaty, but to violate the bilateral Algiers Accords. 

 

This promoter of human rights, who has taken it upon herself to speak on behalf of Iranians, states:  'Iranians will endure considerable hardship if they think the endgame is greater respect for human rights'.  Is she suggesting that Iranians, like Iraqis, be subjected to considerable hardship if they can have respect for human rights - a respect that has yet to be translated into reality on the ground after hundreds of thousands have died.    

 

It is a coincidence that this indistinguishable figure who was proud to be a judge during the Shah's era, a period of dictatorship when the more fortunate dissidents were subjected to SAVAK's torture techniques while others disappeared,  is now hailed as the champion of human rights endorsing meddling in Iran's affairs by the American propaganda machine.  Almost too much of a coincidence.  What made her stand out against all the other activists not only in Iran, but around the globe who worked so hard towards the  'liberties'  that the Western perspective could  recognize and relate to? 

 

It is curious that in interviewing Mr. Ebadi, Jeffrey Gedmin of Foreign Policy should mention Vaclav Havel.  A new wave of liberal thinking emerged which endorsed the idea of promoting 'democracy'  ("liberal Imperialism")  in places of interest, i.e. Iraq and Iran through an individual  "And even more important, one could point to the success of leaders like Kim Dae Jung, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel....."  It was also believed that transition to 'democracy' required focusing on "political strategies" and introducing "indeterminancy" and "uncertainty" into the process of political change which in itself was ground for cautious optimism that democracy could catch on.

 

In 2006, when Ms. Ebadi was being praised for her "bravery" and asked how it was that she was not afraid to go to Iran, she responded: When I got my Nobel prize and went back to Iran, there were over one million people at the airport waiting for me.  They [the government] wouldn't dare touch me.".   One has to wonder why she would be afraid to come back with her one million supporters?  Or perhaps it is the hardship she is encouraging for the Iranians that keep her away from the land which will no doubt reject interference, including all those who solicit them.