U.S. Delivers a Mild Rebuke to Algeria for Canceling Vote

The Bush Administration delivered a mild rebuke Monday to Algeria’s military-backed interim government for canceling the runoff of the country’s first free, fair parliamentary election, although that move prevents Islamic fundamentalists from taking power in the strategic North African nation.

“We view the situation there with concern--the interruption of the electoral process,” State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said. “We commend the fact that Algeria has made impressive strides toward democracy in recent years, and we hope a way can be found to resume progress as soon as possible.”

But Tutwiler made it clear that Washington will try to persuade Algeria to reinstate the democratic process. For instance, she indicated, there will be no economic sanctions against Algeria similar to those imposed on Haiti after the ouster of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, that nation’s democratically elected president.

Asked if Washington’s only response was to say, “We are concerned,” Tutwiler replied: “That’s correct.”

The fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front finished far ahead of the field in the first round of parliamentary voting Dec. 26 and was expected to complete its sweep into power in the runoff voting scheduled for Thursday. The party had won or was leading the race for enough seats to permit it to change the country’s secular constitution and to override presidential vetoes.

“A lot of our friends in the area, the Tunisians, the Moroccans, the French and the Egyptians, will heave a sigh of relief,” said William B. Quandt, a National Security Council staff member during the Carter Administration who is now a Middle East scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

But while an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Algeria would be a clear danger to the secular governments in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt and would be an irritation to France, Quandt said that the direct impact on the United States would be minimal. “We could have lived with the Islamic outcome,” he said. “We can live with this outcome.”

From Washington’s standpoint, Islamic regimes, such as the one in Iran, are anathema. Officials are concerned that once an Islamic party takes power, even by winning a free election, it will clamp down on the opposition and will never allow itself to be voted out.

Richard W. Murphy, the State Department’s top Middle East expert in the Reagan Administration, said there is a danger that a government based on Islamic fundamentalism would try to apply strict religious law in a way that would be inherently undemocratic. Although he said he is not persuaded that Islam and democracy are incompatible, “it does appear that on the ground in Algeria, the Algerian army seems to have decided just that.

“Key Algerians believe (a fundamentalist victory) would end the chance for multi-party democracy,” he said. “Should we disagree with them?”

Outlining the Administration’s policy toward Islamic fundamentalism, Tutwiler said that Washington has long maintained good relations with some religious-based parties and governments but will resist extremists who seek to undermine democracy, human rights and peaceful relations among governments.

“It is important not to generalize about such a complicated subject,” she said. “The term ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ is used in different ways by different people. It embraces a wide variety of religious, political and social concepts. This is not a single coordinated international movement.

“For many years, the United States has had productive and excellent relations with a number of Islamic or deeply observant governments and parties,” she said.

“The United States believes strongly in the principles of peaceful relations between neighbors, democracy and human rights. We want to continue to work with all parties to promote those principles. At the same time, we . . . will continue to resist the efforts of extremists of whatever stripe to undermine those principles.”