VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAS #1144/01 3571440
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 231440Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY ALGIERS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8263

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