Suspicions about Algerian massacres
By Dara Mac Neill
On the same weekend in which three people were killed in a car
crash in the city of Paris, several hundred people lost their
lives in the not-too-distant country of Algeria.
Confused media watchers might, for a moment, have mistakenly
thought that the car crash had in fact occurred in Algeria, while
several hundred deaths had taken place in Paris.
However, the death of a British royal, her partner and their
driver was adjudged by the controllers of the media groups which
set our news agenda to have been far more significant than the
killing of perhaps 500 people in Algeria. Some had their throats
slit, others reportedly were burned alive and some were simply
shot dead.
According to official Algerian sources, 98 people had their
throats cut or were burned alive on Friday 29 August in the town
of Rais, near the capital city of Algiers. Unofficial estimates -
which have frequently proved more reliable in the past - put the
death toll at between 200-300.
That same evening an additional 40 people were killed, in a town
south-west of Algiers. There are also unconfirmed reports of
``hundreds'' being killed by bomb blasts in the town of Oran.
The weekend death toll represents the single greatest loss of
life in Algeria, since the army annulled elections in 1992,
banned opposition parties, and took over the effective running of
the country. Their coup d'état was launched when it became clear
opponents of the government were certain to win the election.
Since then, some 60,000 people have died. The government of Prime
Minister Ahmed Ouyahia has blamed virtually all those deaths on
the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), an organisation brought into being
after the army's 1992 coup.
There is no doubt that the GIA have been involved in the killing,
sometimes in a quite brutal fashion. But as the war drags on,
human rights groups have begun to suspect that it is the
government which is behind the bulk of the killings: using the
cover of a nationwide state of emergency and the spectre of
murderous Islamic fanatics as a cover for their own deadly
activities.
Indeed, one English journalist who recently visited the country
recounted how people in Algiers - from human rights lawyers to
taxi drivers - insist that the regime actually controls elements
of the GIA, using them to eliminate opponents and terrorise the
population into rejecting the Islamic political parties.
Thus reports of the 29 August massacre in the town of Rais
detailed how survivors had repeatedly called for the assistance
of the security forces, but to no avail. None arrived until well
after the hooded killers had finished their work and departed the
area.
Equally, there is the repeated refusal of the regime to engage in
dialogue with the Islamic opposition, or even to engage the
services of outside mediators. They appear happy with the status
quo.
On the same weekend as the massacre in Rais, the regime left none
in any doubt as to their position on negotiations. In quick
succession, they rejected calls for talks from the UN Secretary
General, Kofi Annan, and the Pope. The UN head was accused of
interfering in the country's ``internal affairs.'' Equally, a call
for dialogue and an immediate ceasefire on all sides, from the
leader of Algeria's banned Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), has
also gone unheeded.
By and large, the West has left the Algerian regime to its own
devices. There have been no calls for intervention, no attempts
to mediate. The French, it appears, are appalled at the prospect
of an Islamic state being established so close to them, while
both they and Britain have substantial economic interests in the
region. The oil firm BP, for example, is currently enjoying the
proceeds of its exploitation of the country's huge oil and gas
reserves. Remarkably, for a country in such turmoil, the
production of oil and gas has never once been interrupted or
threatened.
Both countries have also benefited from lucrative arms sales to
the regime, in the past. It will be interesting to see whether
Labour's expressed intent of bringing ethical considerations to
bear on British arms sales has any effect on the trade with
Algeria.
Most convenient of all for the Western countries who pursue a
policy of non-interference - which amounts to de facto support
for the regime - is the spectre of Islam.
Repeatedly, press reports detail how the regime's opponents plan
the establishment of a strict Islamic state, a la Iran. Evidence
to support this is somewhat thin on the ground. Although it is
certain that the Islamic Salvation Front would have made
substantial gains in the 1992 elections, it is also true that any
government in which they sat would have been a coalition,
comprised of various political groupings. Equally, the repeated
calls for dialogue issued by Islamic parties do not conform to
the stereotype of fanatical zealots intent of wiping out all
traces of secular society.
But the spectre of Islam can be used to justify virtually
anything in Western eyes, even the officially-created hell on
earth that currently exists.
Thieves wants money back
Members of the family of deposed Nicaraguan dictator, Anastasio
Somoza, have applied to have their father's `goods and
properties' returned to them.
A notorious thief, Somoza - like his father before him - ran
Nicaragua as his own private fiefdom. Anything that wasn't nailed
down was confiscated, sold or presented to cronies. Most
infamously, Somoza embezzled blood dispatched to the country in
the aftermath of the 1972 earthquake, which destroyed Managua. He
later sold the blood on the international market. And while
fleeing the victorious Sandinista forces in 1979, Somoza's planes
were `forced' to jettison their bomb cargo over the suburbs of
Managua, so loaded down with booty were they. Needless to say,
when the Sandinistas came to power the national coffers were all
but empty.
The attempt by his family to have his `property' returned to them
was made possible by the election last October of President
Arnoldo Aleman. Among those who assisted Aleman on the campaign
trail were a reputed former member of Somoza's death squads, a
nephew of the former dictator and a collection of Somocista
ranchers and businessmen.
Almost immediately upon assuming office, Aleman began returning
properties confiscated by the Sandinistas. He also announced that
should the Somoza family wish to reclaim their father's
ill-gotten gains, they could do so without ``any problem.''
The only bright note in this sordid tale is that a senior
Nicaraguan official has said the process may take up to ten
years. That and the fact that Somoza never lived long enough to
enjoy the spoils of his thievery. He was `mysteriously'
assassinated in Paraguay shortly after fleeing Nicaragua.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)