France–Algeria: Between “Appeasement” Rhetoric and the Realities of Confrontation — The Test of Western Sahara and Historical Memory

In France’s official messaging, one idea keeps resurfacing: relations with Algeria are “meant” to improve, driven by shared history and deep human and economic interdependence. Yet each time this narrative meets reality, the same hard political truth emerges: a genuine strategic reconciliation cannot be built while policies continue that Algeria interprets as a direct blow to its vital interests. Two files, in particular, function as both catalysts and sincerity tests: Western Sahara and colonial memory.

This gap is not only visible in major decisions, but also in how political time is managed: Paris signals de-escalation while maintaining structural fault lines. As a result, questioning France’s real intentions is not an emotional reflex—it is a matter of strategic consistency between words and deeds.

1) Western Sahara: When Alliance Architecture Undermines Any Announced “Rapprochement”

In the summer of 2024, French diplomacy took a decisive turn by asserting that the “present and future” of Western Sahara fall under Moroccan sovereignty and by presenting Morocco’s autonomy proposal as the “only basis” for a political settlement. In Algeria’s reading, this was not a technical nuance or a fleeting diplomatic adjustment, but a strategic repositioning that affects regional balances and the international logic associated with the principle of self-determination.

The consequences were immediate: a sharp crisis and a durable deterioration of trust. More than the diplomatic reaction itself, the core issue is the contradiction of the message: how can Paris call for a “normal” resumption of dialogue while standing by a decision that, from Algeria’s perspective, touches one of the most sensitive dossiers in its strategic environment? In geopolitics, some issues are not “one file among others”—they are trust anchors.

This is why French calls to “separate the dossiers” or “avoid linking everything” are perceived in Algeria as a risky oversimplification. Western Sahara is precisely a structural issue, and not a peripheral detail. Under these conditions, the invitation to rapprochement can look like a request for normalization without addressing the cause—restoring channels and cooperation while leaving intact the political choice that triggered the rupture.

2) Historical Memory: A “Drip-Feed” Strategy Instead of Political Closure

On colonial memory, the problem is not the total absence of gestures, but rather the nature of the approach: partial acknowledgments, symbolic signals, and limited openings of archives—without a clear shift enabling political closure. This incremental management raises a straightforward question: is the objective to resolve the issue, or to administer it over the long term?

From the Algerian standpoint, this looks like a “drip-feed” policy, where memory becomes a flexible political instrument—activated in some moments, frozen in others. Instead of a coherent trajectory toward truth and repair that ultimately closes the file, the dossier remains open—mechanically providing Paris with room for maneuver in other areas (mobility, security cooperation, economic bargaining, and so on).

In other words, memory risks shifting from a path toward historical justice to a negotiating lever. And as long as the perception of a fragmented approach persists, trust remains fragile: in international relations, sincerity is judged not only by declared intent, but by the ability to adopt a politically legible solution—even when it has domestic costs.

3) The French Domestic Context: A Battle Over Narratives and Cultural Polarization

France’s caution on sensitive issues is also shaped by internal dynamics. The country is going through a phase of polarization in which cultural and media arenas have become battlegrounds over identity, history, and symbolic legitimacy. In such a context, the national narrative—and anything touching colonial history—becomes more politically explosive.

Recent mobilizations in the film and publishing worlds illustrate this tension: they express fears about the concentration of cultural power and, more broadly, about an ideological “framing” capable of influencing what is produced and widely disseminated. This internal struggle weighs on foreign policy, because any bold move on memory or on North Africa can be seized upon, distorted, or weaponized within France’s domestic ideological confrontation.

The temptation, then, is to settle for minimal compromise: a few symbolic gestures, careful announcements, and ongoing “processes”—but rarely a decisive act that truly closes the file. Yet a strategy designed to limit domestic turbulence comes at the cost of incomplete external trust, especially with a partner like Algeria that looks for clear positions, not perpetual sequencing.

4) Restoring “Channels”: Technical De-Escalation or Political Refoundation?

In this setting, the language of renewed diplomatic engagement—rebuilding damaged links, restoring cooperation mechanisms, relaunching joint historical work—fits a logic of reopening channels. There is an obvious rationale here: in an unstable regional environment (the Sahel, Mali, Mediterranean tensions, broader Middle East volatility), sustained Franco-Algerian dialogue is not a luxury but a risk-management necessity.

However, this also highlights a limit: restoring channels does not automatically mean addressing the two structural knots—Western Sahara and the political closure of memory. The risk is a scenario of “functional détente”: procedures are repaired, exchanges resume, crises are contained… without a true political refoundation of the relationship. But refoundation requires clarity on the files that shattered confidence in the first place.

Conclusion: Strategic Coherence Matters More Than the Rhetoric of Calm

Ultimately, the issue is not that France speaks of rapprochement; it is that the map of its actions can still produce a contradictory equation:

1. A Western Sahara posture that Algeria interprets as a strategic shift affecting its regional vital interests.
2. An incremental handling of memory that sustains the impression of an open file, and therefore a politically usable one.
3. French domestic polarization that narrows the political space for decisive moves on colonial history and North Africa.
4. A diplomatic restart that may produce de-escalation, but not necessarily deep reconciliation without addressing root causes.

For these reasons, doubting the seriousness of rapprochement is not an exercise in bad faith—it is a coherence-based reading. Real reconciliation is not built by artificially compartmentalizing issues or by urging one side to “look away,” but by explicitly resolving the fault lines that generate distrust. As long as those locks remain, “warming relations” will remain more a slogan than a durable political reality.

---

By Belgacem Merbah