From the statements of M. Georges Pompidou, the new head of the French Government, one would infer that the Algerian conflict is a thing of the past. On the theory that he is now freed from that incubus, he has serenely set about dealing with French social questions and above all with the international problems which, to tell the truth, have always been General de Gaulle's sole, indeed almost obsessive, preoccupation.
From the statements of M. Georges Pompidou, the new head of the French Government, one would infer that the Algerian conflict is a thing of the past. On the theory that he is now freed from that incubus, he has serenely set about dealing with French social questions and above all with the international problems which, to tell the truth, have always been General de Gaulle's sole, indeed almost obsessive, preoccupation.
But can one really speak of Algeria in the past tense? The secret Army Organization is very far from having been disarmed, despite the spectacular capture of Generals Jouhaud and Salan. The daily bulletins recording assassinations and crimes of all sorts are as regular as ever and the lists of the victims are as numerous. How can one speak, then, of having "got over" the Algerian problem?
It is "got over" by taking a specifically Gaullist attitude. Charles de Gaulle has said more than once that a statesman is a man who can "see beyond," who is farsighted enough to be able to distinguish the hidden essential from the visible nonessential, no matter how serious it momentarily seems. In his view, actions that are urgent at the moment should be carried out by simple executors; statesmen must devote themselves to the future.
This concept would be plausible enough if the executors were always on the watch to see that current actions did not compromise the future and that day-by-day realities did not jeopardize the long-range ideal; and if they had the means to do this effectively. But this is far from being the case. It is certain, for example, that since September 16, 1959,[i] General de Gaulle's closest entourage has not set out seriously to do what needed to be done if the concepts of decolonization which he had formulated in more or less precise terms were to be realized. It is equally certain that the conditions in which de Gaulle himself felt able to carry on the war in Algeria before achieving the Evian agreements were bound to have important consequences for the future of both France and Algeria, and also for the future relations between Algeria on the one hand and Europe and the whole free world on the other. My purpose in this article is to show that even though there is a good chance that the Algerian war is ending, the Algerian problem has only just begun.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
THE capture of Algiers in 1830 marked a significant departure in the expansionist policy of France, for North Africa was quite unlike older French colonial possessions in the Caribbean Sea and the Indian Ocean. The French soon discovered that North Africa -- or the Maghreb, as the Arabs called it -- did not produce tropical goods and that the native population could neither be destroyed to make way for European colonists nor enslaved to work for them. They also found that Islam provided the natives with a religious and a cultural ideal which they would stubbornly defend.
ALTHOUGH nothing can be completely certain in a problem so complex and emotion-bound as that of the Algerian revolution, it is now at least clear that the statement of President de Gaulle on September 16 and the events subsequent to it represented a major turning point in that struggle. The policy enunciated in the presidential declaration made mention for the first time, with reservations, of the possibility of self-determination, by which all Algerians would freely choose between the three alternatives of integration with France, some kind of association, or independence.
The saying that France has "the stupidest right in the world" was demonstrated again by the Algiers coup of April 1961. What the quartet of generals hoped to achieve that might or could have been durable is difficult to imagine. The French right is still nourished largely on the philosophy of Charles Maurras and the Action Française; and in recent years it has moved progressively toward fascism, a political development closely linked to phenomena of decay and obsolescence inherent in the social structure of France. This was expressed in laconic fashion by the former Catholic premier, Georges Bidault, when he said, "Tout se dégrade; je me sens devenir fasciste"- "Everything is debased; I feel myself becoming a fascist."

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.