Did Moscow Really Promise Egypt A Nuclear Bomb?

By Colum Lynch

This commentary was published in Foreign Policy on 23/12/2010

Egypt's U.N. ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, speaking in a confidential arms control briefing last year with top U.S. officials, sought to burnish his country's reputation as a responsible player on the nuclear front with an anecdote illustrating Cairo's lack of interest in pursuing atomic weapons.

According to a leaked State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, Abdelaziz told Rose Gottemoeller, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, that Russia had offered Egypt "nuclear scientists, materials and even weapons following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Egypt had refused all such offers."

"A/S Gottemoeller asked him how he knew this to be true, to which Abdelaziz replied he was in Moscow at that time and had direct personal knowledge," the cable continued.

The claim by Abdelaziz -- who was serving as a young first secretary in the Egyptian embassy in Moscow at the time -- has been met with skepticism among arms control scholars and experts on the Soviet nuclear program. They acknowledge that in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's there were concerns about weak controls over nuclear materials and the risk of out-of-work nuclear scientists selling their expertise to the highest bidder, but they say that it's now clear that nuclear warheads were always kept under strict control of the military. There is little evidence that Moscow -- which had to struggle to exert control over nuclear weapons in Belarus and Ukraine -- sought to export its nuclear program to Egypt or other countries.

"I know Abdelaziz well and would not discount what he said," Dr. William C. Potter, an expert on nuclear weapons and the director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said in an email exchange. "However, I am very skeptical that his post-Soviet interlocutor could have delivered what he allegedly promised, especially an intact weapon. Control over nuclear material and know-how certainly was inadequate at the time and private nuclear entrepreneurs were rampant -- including the infamous CHETEK Company that sought to peddle nukes for ‘environmental' purposes. It is unlikely, however, that a first secretary would have been on the receiving end of a legitimate offer for a nuclear weapon."

Abdelaziz declined through his spokeswoman to comment on the cable.

The eleven-page cable details Gottemoeller's meetings with Abdelaziz and several other key diplomats in New York between May 5 and 7 earlier this year, on the sidelines of a final preparatory meeting on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The sessions were meant to prepare for a major review conference on the landmark 1970 nuclear treaty, which requires the world's five original nuclear powers to disarm their atomic arsenals in an exchange for a commitment from the rest to forsake nuclear weapons.

The cable provides an inside look at how some of the world's most important arms control negotiators have responded to a presidential administration in Washington that has placed of arms control treaties at the top of its foreign policy agenda. One foreign delegation after another applauded the American embrace of treaties limiting the use of nuclear weapons, saying they had reclaimed the moral high ground over nuclear proliferators like North Korea and Iran. "Nearly all delegations seemed to be showing some ‘restraint' this year," Australia's Assistant Secretary for Arms Controls and Counter proliferation John Sullivan. "He added that other delegations had commented to him that even Iran's statements showed some constraint."

But the foreign delegations also highlighted some key challenges and frustrations, including a concern that Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons program, or the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could undercut U.S. efforts to pursue its nuclear proliferation objectives. Gottemoeller acknowledged the need for the U.S to prod Israel into embracing international agreements that place constraints on their nuclear activities. In a discussion with the Algerian diplomat Idriss Jazairy, Gottemoeller said that negotiations on a new treaty barring the production of fissile material used in a nuclear explosive had been complicated by a lack of Israeli support. "Israel must be brought on board before any real action could take place," on such negotiations, she said. Until now, the U.S. and other governments have singled out Pakistan -- which has blocked negotiations in Geneva -- as the key stumbling block for agreement on a fissile material cut-off treaty, a cornerstone of the Obama administration's non-proliferation strategy. The foreign diplomats also registered frustration with a U.S. nuclear-cooperation deal with India that many believe runs counter to Washington's commitment to halt the spread of nuclear technology.

The Canadian diplomat, Marius Grinius told Gottemoeller that his government appreciated U.S. plans to "move quickly" toward negotiations on a fissile material cut off treaty, saying it is "time to smoke out Pakistan, Iran and Israel on their positions." Grinius also asked the American to explain how the controversial nuclear cooperation deal between the U.S. and India was promoting international nonproliferation objectives. The U.S. National Security Council specialist, Adam Scheinman, said the U.S. had decided to change the name of the arrangement to the Nuclear Suppliers Group -- Indian Cooperation deal -- a title suggesting the deal enjoyed the support of the group's 46 members. "Grinius did not think this rebranding was fair, saying that most NSG members ‘gave up' and ‘joined the bandwagon' rather than fully supporting the nuclear agreement with India."

Tibor Toth, the executive secretary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which is responsible for monitoring nuclear explosions, complained that his agency was facing a cash crunch and he pleaded with the American to reconsider a decision to withhold millions in funding to the organization. "The organization will face extensive financial trouble in FY2010. He said there was a $15-$20 million deficit in the regular budget, which will substantially affect the work of the agency."

The Lebanese Solution Train

By Zuheir Kseibati

This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 23/12/2010

There is no exaggeration at the level of the optimism which prevailed following the birth of the new Iraqi government after long months of Iraqi and regional negotiations and discussions. This is in view of the fact that this birth was deemed to be an indicator for the likely extension of the truce in Lebanon, while awaiting a comprehensive agreement sponsored by the Saudi-Syrian umbrella to overcome the repercussions of the international tribunal’s indictment.

And while the race between the tribunal’s decision that will address accusations to those implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and the comprehensive settlement which will enable Lebanon to avoid strife was still ongoing, the position of the Guide of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Ali Khamenei, did not come as a surprise, except at the level of its timing.

True, the fact that he considered that any sentence issued by the tribunal is “null” falls in the context of a previous campaign launched by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the international tribunal and its “politicization.” However, what is also true is that Ahmadinejad himself announced once that it was a “Lebanese domestic affair.”

At a time when Khamenei’s campaign breached the truce among the Lebanese sides, consequently causing division among them just as they are divided over all the major issues, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri was quickly able to contain this. Hence, this is yet another indicator for the chances of success of the Saudi-Syrian consultations and the ideas that are still kept secret. And while some have detected a green light from the Guide to Hezbollah to stage escalation, the team that focused on his call to confront “the conspiracy” with “reason and wisdom” was not mistaken in detecting an underlying call not to surpass the language of dialogue.

For their part, those who are optimistic about the chances of a solution in Lebanon perceive significant signs in the announcement made by the Iranian Foreign Ministry following the ousting of Manouchehr Mottaki. Indeed, the Foreign Ministry announced an intention to give the relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey priority in Tehran’s foreign policy, as well as a “silent” momentum in support of the Saudi-Syrian umbrella in Lebanon to appease Hezbollah’s concerns over its fate in the post-indictment phase. Some even went as far as differentiating – while coming up with a vision for the possible exits – between the talk about Hezbollah’s arms and the talk about the resistance’s arms in the unknown ideas featured in the solution, in a way that places these arms in the context of the basket of understanding – alongside the consecration and completion of the implementation of the Taif Accord and the activation of the governmental work without an obstructing third. This would be seen, provided that the decision of the tribunal does not pose a direct threat on Hezbollah’s command, even if it were to affect elements in it. Some also differentiated between the arms to confront Israel and the arms that are no longer acceptable on the domestic arena, considering they are obstructing the work of the constitutional institutions and the parliamentary system one way or the other, and are representing the other side of the coin of the obstructing third.

All of the latter ideas are mere assumptions, but what restored calm following Khamenei’s campaign was the talk of Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc leader Deputy Muhammad Raad (As-Safir newspaper) about “certain concessions” required to reach solutions, as well as about “maintaining and protecting the resistance against the Israeli occupation.” This is probably the first time that Hezbollah approaches the concessions issue in such a clear way, thus constituting yet another advantage in favor of the Saudi-Syrian umbrella, which has successfully passed the test of protecting the solution project from the Lebanese disputes.

Whether or not the link that was established between Khamenei’s position toward the tribunal and Tehran’s project or vision for what it wants from America in the next round of talks over the nuclear file in Istanbul – in the context of American-Iranian understandings over the regional files – is right on the mark, it is clear that the efforts to round the corners of the solution in Lebanon are advancing with the retreat of the language of threats. Therefore, everyone is getting ready for the announcement of the agreement, while some are showing concern over their roles under the cover of their eager defense of the rights of the sects.

As for the daily disputes, they do not raise any fears over the New Year’s calm, even if Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri were to escalate the tone against March 14 because he “will not kneel down.” General Aoun himself reassured the Lebanese that their country was not “without control,” while in order to break the routine during the wait for the solution, the General thought it would be fine to launch a campaign here against the “gutter Cabinet,” and another masked one there against Patriarch Sfeir who exercises politics “as a hobby.”

Between the concerns of seeing “strife” and the fear over the fate of justice and the country, it is clear that some have calculations of another kind and fears of losing their positions if the solution train were to pass them by.

Jabir Al-Fayfi: The Al-Qaeda Commander Who Came In From The Cold

By Turki Al-Saheil
This article was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 22/12/2010

Arabia to Pakistan via Qatar, before crossing the border into Afghanistan, where he fought alongside the Taliban for 9 months, until the 9/11 attacks took place, brining his stay in the country to an end. Al-Fayfi spoke about all of this and more during the first of his televised confessions on Saudi television on Tuesday. Al-Fayfi is the prominent Al Qaeda commander who recently surrendered himself to Saudi authorities, playing what has been described as a key role in uncovering the recent Cargo Planes Bomb plot.
 
Jabir al-Fayfi is only a recent recruit to Al Qaeda, joining Al Qaeda in Yemen after he was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in late 2006 following a 5-year detention in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. He was perhaps one of the most prominent figures included on the Saudi Interior Ministry's list of 85 most wanted terrorists.
 
In his confession, al-Fayfi who was born in 1975 in Taif, acknowledges being stubborn and head-strong. He reveled that he worked as a prison guard at Jeddah's Briman Prison before he was laid off due to frequent absences. Although he was not particularly religious at the time, al-Fayfi underwent a religious transformation after losing his job. He then decided to travel and join the "jihad" in Afghanistan as a form of repentance for past misdeeds after listening to audio tapes of well-known Saudi clerics who called on Saudi youth to travel and fight in Afghanistan.
 
In his televised confession, Al-Fayfi also revealed how the Afghans turned on the Arab mujahedeen after 9/11, and how he, along with 300 other Arab mujahedeen, were betrayed by the Afghans, captured by the Pakistani army, and handed over to the Americans.
 
Al-Fayfi revealed that during the period that he fought in Afghanistan "at this time [in Afghanistan] there was no such thing as Al Qaeda…the majority of those who entered Afghanistan wanted training or to join the Taliban or travel to Chechnya via Afghanistan [to fight]."
 
Al-Fayfi said that his own intention upon entering Afghanistan was to receive training and then travel to Chechnya to fight. He reveals that he received his training at the Al Farouk Training Camp around the same time that Al Qaeda was first establishing itself in the country, and denied having any knowledge about how such training camps were funded, revealing that prior to leaving Saudi Arabia he had sold his car in order to finance his trip.
 
Al-Fayfi also revealed that "before the events of 9/11, I was undertaking a training course [at Al Farouk Camp], and as soon as this [attack] occurred we left the area and traveled to the front-line [between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance] which was in Bagram." He also reveals that initially there was a lot of confusion about the 9/11 attacks, with various rumors about who had been attacked and who was responsible, including rumors that this attack had been against China.
 
Al-Fayfi spoke in detail about the period prior to the US invasion, saying "we were in one set of trenches, and the Northern Alliance were in front of us, and after a month the [US] bombing started, and the Northern Alliance advanced forcing the Taliban to retreat. Kabul fell, and we retreated…until we reached Jalalabad where we stayed until it also fell [to the Northern Alliance]…so we were forced to take refuge in the Tora Bora Mountains where the Arabs were already present, so we joined them there."
 
Al-Fayfi said that the majority of the Arab mujahedeen were Saudi Arabians, as well as Yemeni nationals. He revealed that the Arab mujahedeen remained in the Tora Bora Mountains throughout Ramadan and that they were provided for and equipped by Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. During this period, al-Fayfi said that the entire region was continually shelled, and that the Arab mujahedeen were completely cut-off from supplies, so that "our food [stores] finished, as did the food [stores] in Afghanistan as a whole."
 
Al-Fayfi reveals that at this point, the Afghans turned against the Arabs, beginning to attack them in order to force them to leave the country. Al-Fayfi said "they were fighting us to force us to leave….for their villages were occasionally being hit by air strikes, so they decided to fight us to force us to leave." He added "we stayed throughout Ramadan and then we left during Eid, we left for Pakistan."
 
Here things take a dramatic turn, al-Fayfi said that "we were a group of around 300 people, most of us Saudi Arabians; our ages ranging between 20 and 25….we were deceived that there was an agreement that we would be allowed to enter [Pakistan], and that there would be no problem with this." He revealed that conditions along the Afghan – Pakistani border at this time were extremely hard, and that the group of 300 Arab mujahedeen marched for around 4 days in freezing cold conditions until they reached the Pakistani border. Al-Fayfi also revealed that the Arab mujahedeen were convinced to lay down their arms before entering Pakistan, which was the beginning of the process of this group of Arab mujahedeen being handed over to the Pakistani army.
 
Al-Fayfi said that "we were taken to a certain area [in Pakistan]…they put us in a large mosque in the village and said that we would be moving to another region by car and that somebody from the army would be with us to help us pass through any checkpoints to ensure that we are not stopped." Following this journey, al-Fayfi said that "we were dropped off in a darkened street, and we entered an enclosed space…as soon as we entered we saw that there were a lot of soldiers everywhere…when we asked, what's happening, they said that this is a prison, and that we had been captured and that they would be seeking to surrender us to our home countries."
 
He also revealed that many of the Arab mujahedeen who had been captured by the Pakistani army would have preferred to be imprisoned in Pakistan rather than return to their home countries, but that he himself had no problem returning to Saudi Arabia.
 
He says that he was later blindfolded and taken to a different prison by the Pakistani authorities where he was fingerprinted, and that he remained there waiting to be sent back to Saudi Arabia until a group of international police arrived at the prison and questioned him and others for a period of around 14 days, after which he was taken into US custody and later transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
 
Al-Fayfi was later repatriated to Saudi Arabia in late 2006, and he went on to join Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, reportedly becoming a leading member of this organization. However all of this changed when al-Fayfi surrendered himself to the Saudi authorities in October 2010, and reportedly played a key role in uncovering the 29 October 2010 Cargo Planes Bomb plot. This plot saw two explosive devices discovered on Cargo Planes bound from Yemen to the US; these explosive devices were discovered en route in England and Dubai, with sources saying that these bombs were most likely designed to explode to detonate in mid-air, with the intention of destroying both planes over Chicago and another US city.

Christian Flight Would Spell The End For The Arab world

By Hasni Abidi
This commentary was published in The Daily Star on 23/12/2010

 

Should we be concerned about the fate of Christian communities in the Arab world? This burning issue hits the headlines time and again whenever a church is attacked in Iraq or when Egyptian Copts are bullied. Most recently an appeal by a group of Arab intellectuals to rise above sectarian divisions was published in the French media following a bloody attack against Iraqi Christians.

The media routinely characterize the disappearance or wholesale departure of Middle Eastern Christians as a phenomenon that is “imminent” or “unavoidable.” And the trend has been to explain the dangers facing the Christian community as a result of the rise of “radical” Islam. This explanation reinforces the idea that Christians are victims who must be “saved” from Islam.

This coverage also provides an opportunity for Arab governments to escape responsibility by blaming religion any political or social unrest, thus renewing their lease on legitimacy on the cheap.

Conversely, some Western opinion leaders do not realize the impact of statements asserting, for instance, that the end of colonialism has deprived Middle Eastern Christians of valuable support from Europeans; or the impact of calling Arab Christians “Westernized Arabs.” Such remarks ignore the importance of the ideological contributions of Christians to Middle Eastern societies, and the fact that in the mid-20th century it was Christian elites who imagined, conceived and carried the inspiring project of Arab unity.

The concept of Arab nationalism, conceived in part by Christian Arab intellectuals, such as Michel Aflaq, the Syrian founder of the Arab Baath Socialist Party, was based on the idea of a social body where clan, tribal and religious divisions would be subsumed in the nation, or even in the broader Arab community. Arab unity was the avenue to a pan-Arab state bolstered by the values of reason, citizenship and modernity.

Despite its efforts to advance the cause of pluralism, such as the United Nations’ decision to label 1999 the Year of the Dialogue of Civilizations, the international community seems to be blind to the real challenges of diversity in the world in the past decade.

Celebrating coexistence is not the only response. Dialogue between cultures at the international level can succeed only if it this paired with changes at the national level. How can cultural coexistence be promoted if, within national borders, the cult of the dominant faith, or indeed the one-party system, still exists? Governments in Arab countries should protect their Christian citizens instead of bringing before their courts men and women who have chosen a way other than that of the majority.

Multinational organizations can also lend their support. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in addition to defending Muslims living in the West, can also advocate against the abuse inflicted on Christians in the Middle East.

Some voices, including that of Saudi Prince Talal ibn Abd al-Aziz, the brother of King Abdullah, warn that the departure of Christians would be a threat to democracy and modernity in the Arab world. More such voices should speak up in order to initiate a long-overdue debate about the living conditions and the rights of religious minorities. A failure of democracy, in which citizens lack equal rights under the law and where there are few checks on the powers of leaders, is largely responsible for the current disaster.

To say Christians should merely be “tolerated” in the Arab world is unfair. Christians have always been an integral part of the land where they were born and raised, the land of their forbearers, the land of the Bible. They are not a recently imported religious minority that deserves our charity. They do not come from a foreign country. They are active citizens of their homeland where they should be given the choice to remain.

If they leave, it will be the end of our history and the beginning of our downfall. The fate of Christians in the Middle East is linked to the fate of the Arab world as a whole.

Political analyst Hasni Abidi is director of the Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean World (CERMAM) in Geneva. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org).

Under The Christmas Lights In Bethlehem

By Michael Jansen

This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 23/12/2010

 

In spite of the collapse of the negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, the little town of Bethlehem will be swamped with pilgrims over the Christmas season. More than 90,000 are expected to tour Christian sites to mark the birth of Jesus 2,000 years ago.

Pilgrims and tourists these days are no more deterred by difficulties than they were during the past hundreds of years when this region was oft afflicted by strife.

Chief among the sites is the Church of the Nativity. Tradition holds that it was built over the manger in the stable where Jesus was laid by his mother because there was no room at local inns. The church is an imposing rectangular stone-built basilica constructed in 333AD by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine and renovated from time to time by Palestine’s subsequent rulers and prelates. The location of the manger, marked by a silver star, is a grotto beneath the church reached by narrow stairways on either side of the main altar.

Pilgrims enter the church through the “Door of Humility”, bowing their heads and stepping over the worn lintel into the chill, dim, colonnaded interior of the church. The door was, however, not made to instill a proper sense of reverence and humility but to prevent armed men on horseback from charging into the church, long a place of refuge from the wars and conflicts that have afflicted Palestine for millennia.

Most recently, the church became a refuge during the spring of 2002, when Israeli forces were reinvading the West Bank with the aim of crushing the second Intifada. Israeli troops drove Palestinian fighters into the sanctum of the church. A siege ensued, with world powers calling for restraint and the media - including this correspondent - camped out in the narrow streets overlooking the church. After 39 days, the Palestinians turned themselves in to the Israeli military and were exiled to Europe and the Gaza Strip. Some still have not been able to go home.

For Bethlehem, the siege was a critical point in Israel’s occupation. The Israelis were shown the limits of their power. This was a rare occurrence at the time. But times are changing and Israel’s image in the world has been blackened by its brutal 2006 war on Lebanon and its even more horrendous 2008-09 onslaught on Gaza.

Israel - to the dismay of its allies in the West - is losing the battle for “hearts and minds” because people round the world are learning about its occupation policies.

This week, Human Rights Watch published a particularly damning 166-page report on the situation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel is pilloried for practising a discriminatory two-tier system of governance, providing lavishly for the colonists it is illegally planting in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank while denying Palestinians the basics, such as electricity, water and access roads.

Today not just the Church of the Nativity but the whole of Bethlehem, a town of 30,000, is under siege by Israeli colonies, checkpoints and walls. The colonies have eaten up 87 per cent of the land of Bethlehem governorate and are encroaching on the land remaining to the Palestinians. Muslim farmers are being driven from their villages into Bethlehem and neighbouring Beit Jala and Beit Sahour, once predominantly Christian towns. The influx from the countryside is changing the character of these towns although relations between the communities remain good.

Unemployment is high. Christians are emigrating to Latin America, the US and Australia, where they have relatives. Christians are only one per cent of the total Palestinian population, down from about 10 per cent when Israel was established in 1948.

The people of Bethlehem, regarded by Israel as West Bankers, are not allowed to move freely. They have to cross multiple checkpoints to reach other towns and cities in the West Bank and must obtain permits to go to Jerusalem, where Jesus met his death by crucifixion at the hands of Roman occupiers. East Jerusalem was annexed as part of Israel’s capital in 1967 and Palestinians from the West Bank are barred from entering without Israeli permits which are difficult to obtain, particularly for Bethlehem’s Muslims.

These days, there is no room at the inns in Bethlehem. All hotel accommodation is booked. The local hostelry can handle only five per cent of the visitors expected this Christmas season, most of whom stay in hotels in Israel and are bused into Bethlehem for day tours. Bethlehem received 1.4 million tourists this year, most for quick visits to the holy sites. Few patronise the shops in Manger Square which sell local handicrafts: delicate jewellery made of mother of pearl and representations of the nativity scene of Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus lying in a manger in a stable surrounded by shepherds and wise men from Persia, carved from olive wood.

In spite of its trials and tribulations, Bethlehem has put on a happy face for Christmas. A large Christmas tree stands in Manger Square, lights and ornaments gleaming. The square is decked with strings of lights and colourful banners. Christmas music blares from the Peace Centre, built by the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s when it believed peace was at hand. No one who knows what is going on in occupied Palestine believes this today.

When Will There Be Justice For Lebanon's War Dead?

The thousands killed during the civil war are forgotten as politicians exploit the tribunals and courts for their own ends

By Mohanad Hage Ali

This commentary was published in The Guardian on 22/12/2010 

A Lebanese man sitting in 2007 in a house still carrying the scars of the civil war in Beirut. Photograph: Marwan Naamani/AFP/Getty Images

The Tragedy Of Algeria's 'Disappeared'

The Algerian government is trumpeting the revolution that put an end to French colonial rule half a century ago. But what followed left its own deep scars, writes Robert Fisk in Algiers

By Robert Fisk    

This article was published in The Independent on 20/12/2010

They are all over the wall of Naseera Dutour's office, in their hundreds, in their thousands. There are cemeteries of them, bearded, clean shaven, the youth and the elderly of Algeria, veiled women, a smiling girl with a ribbon in her hair, in colour for the most part; the bodbath of the 1990s was a post-technicolor age so the blood came bright red and soaked right through the great revolution that finally conquered French colonial power.

There's a powerful irony that Naseera's cramped offices – "SOS Disparu", it's called, in conscious imitation of the searches for the "disappeared" of Chile and Argentina – should be on the ground floor of an old pied noir apartment, beyond a carved wooden door and patterned tiles, at No.3 rue Ghar Djebilet, just off Didouch Mourad St. Didouch, too, was a martyr – of the first revolution, the one we were supposed to remember in Algiers this month – rather than all those faces on Naseera's walls. For Naseera, too, has a martyr to mourn.

No talk at Algeria's anti-colonialism conference of the 6,000 men and women who died under torture at the hands of the Algerian police and army and hooded security men in the 1990s. For across at Sidi Fredj – yes, just up the coast where the French landed in 1830 – le pouvoir was parading a clutch of ancient ex-presidents from the mystical lands of the anti-colonial struggle, to remind us of Algeria's primary role in the battle against world imperialism. There was old Ahmed Ben Bella – more white-haired skeleton than Algeria's first leader, coup-ed out of power in 1965 (although they didn't mention that). There was poor old Dr Kenneth Kaunda, who mercilessly tried to sing a song under the wondrous eyes of Thabo Mbeki. And then there were the Vietnamese whose victory at Dien Bien Phu taught the FLN (National Liberation Front) that they could beat the French here, which they did in 1962 at a cost of, say, one and a half million "martyrs".

In theory, this was all staged to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the UN General Assembly's Resolution 1514, which demanded the right of independence to all colonised people (special emphasis in Algiers, of course, on the Palestinians and the Sahrawi refugees). But the real reason le pouvoir – "the authorities" – gathered these elderly ex-presidents in Algeria was to build a new foundation – wood or concrete I haven't yet decided – over the mass graves of the 250,000 "martyrs" of another conflict, the barbarous civil war of 1990-98, if indeed it has yet ended. Le pouvoir has invented a wonderful new expression for this bloodbath. It's called Algeria's "National Tragedy", as if the government's suspension of elections and the brutal, family-slaughtering, throat-cutting war with the savage Islamists of the Armed Islamic Group, the GIA, was a Shakespearean play, Othello perhaps, or Hamlet in which, I suppose, Ben Bella stares at his own skull. More like Titus Andronicus, if you ask me.

Naseera Dutour's brave little team of girl volunteers tap away on their laptops, listing yet more families who seek the remains of those victims of the security forces for whom all hope is gone. The cops drop by the office from time to time for a spot of harassment, but they have no need to worry. Amina Beuslimane, a pretty 28-year-old civil servant, supposedly taking snapshots of cemeteries and blown-up buildings – perhaps for evidence of government crimes – was arrested by security police on 13 December 1994. Her family were told they would not see her again and she apparently ended up in the special interrogation and rape centre at the Chateauneuf barracks. The butchers of Chateauneuf can relax, however, because a post-war referendum that granted an amnesty to the "Islamists" also purged the security forces of their crimes. And besides, Amina's mum died a few days ago, so there's one less memory to worry about.

I walked through the laneways of Algiers for several days, in places a foreigner would not have survived 16 years ago. In the Casbah, I visited the spot where poor Olivier Quemener, a French television journalist whose camera sticks I had carried the previous day, was shot dead by bearded "Islamists" in 1994, his reporter colleague found lying wounded beside him, weeping over his dead friend. Compared with all the civilians beheaded and raped by the GIA outside Algiers, I suppose Quemener was spared the very worst. As for the tough old cops of the 1990s who used to blast water through men's throats until their stomachs burst, most must be dead themselves, a few en retrait, as they say.

And some of the rapists from Chateauneuf, who knows, through trails of promotion, may have been guarding the equally old conference delegates at Sidi Fredj. And by the way, Jacques Vergès was there, he whose wife was so cruelly treated by the French and who defended the Nazi butcher Klaus Barbie. Ironies pile up here like old bones. And yes, the government won the civil war, didn't they, and anyway who would have wanted the bearded Islamic Salvation Front to have ruled back in the 1990s, imposing sharia law and veiling women and murdering every opponent and, besides, is not the pouvoir the real inheritor of the old National Liberation Front, the FLN? In Algeria, they have a phrase for these arguments. They call it "heating up old soup".

And so art comes to the rescue of memory. There is a spring of new books being published in Algeria, novels of great richness and beauty and sadness, the only way authors can confront those mass graves of the 1990s. A veiled woman in a bright new Algiers bookshop advises me to buy two of them. In Amin Zaoui's Bed of the Impure Virgin, old florist Momou – plying his trade, yes, on the same Didouche Mourad St – laments the 1973 murder of his old poet friend Jean Sénac. Believing that he will portray Senac in a movie, Momou – he loves only Algiers, flowers, wine and poetry – slowly goes mad, reciting Senac's verse in the streets and tea-shops, ending in a small city courtyard beneath a tree where he quotes night and day the words of Senac, a real anarchist and poet and friend (yes, again!) of that old phantom Ben Bella who made his return from the grave last week. But the courtyard is used for prayers by the Islamists of the 1990s and because Senac was a "homo" (their words) and because this is against Islam and because Momou might have been Senac's lover, they string up the crazy florist from the tree, and his body hangs there for three days and three nights as the bearded men say their dawn prayers beneath his corpse. Do I smell Camus here?

And then there's Adlène Meddi's novel of Algiers today in which two old soldiers (graduates of Algeria's Cherchell Military College) reminisce of the 1990s and one of them tells the other of a nightmare experience. In the Arab world, novels are often fiction dusted with truth. In Algeria, they are truth cloaked in fiction. Read then with appropriate horror Meddi's description of the fate of an Algerian army commandant, Djaafar Rahb, commander of the 2nd Armored Division at Tlegema, who deserts to the "terrorists" and is caught and tied to a tree. The army commander arrives from Constantine by helicopter, the soldiers are lined up, the man's wife and two children are brought to the scene and the soldiers pour petrol on Rahb and set him on fire, the cadets vomiting at the stench of carbonised flesh.

What lies behind such writing? Meddi's hero is Sjo, a retired cop who goes back to work to pay off his debts and starts a murder enquiry that brings back all the ghosts of the 1990s. His journalist friend Ras, still mourning his professional colleagues who had their throats slit by the GIA, walks with him down an Algiers street, still fearful of the past. "Ras walked like Djo. One eye in front, the other behind his head... Followed by death for years, he had developed a strong sense of prudence and impending disaster. Everything leaves its traces..."

And that is exactly how le pouvoir feels and acts today, one confident eye to the future, one terrified eye to the past, acting with prudence and with fear that the nightmares of the 1990s may yet return. The earlier, great anti-colonial struggle of which all Algerian delegates spoke was fought against the French. Yet not once was the word "France" mentioned at the Sidi Fredj conference. It cannot be, for while delegates were trucked off to the concrete ghastliness of the 1954-62 "Martyr's Monument" to the anti-French war of independence, another little journey – by a certain Abdelaziz Belkhadem, special representative to President Bouteflika, who couldn't quite make it to the conference – said a lot more about modern Algeria.

Having stunned delegates with a speech of mind-numbing boredom ("undeniable progress after the heavy burdens of the colonial era", etc, etc), he sped off to the gaunt sepulchre of the newly restored French cathedral of Our Lady of Africa, consecrated at the height of French power in 1872, which still towers gloomily over the city of Algiers. Desecrated by Islamists, broken by a more recent earthquake, the whole place, once a symbol of French Catholic domination of Muslim Algeria, has been magnificently patched up and re-painted and re-tiled at a cost of more than £4m by the European Union, the French Embassy and numerous Algerian benefactors – and reopened, heritage style, as a monument to coexistence. And there the man who had just condemned the heavy burdens of colonialism stood with the French to commemorate this great church – and refused to read his speech.

Because, for so it was hinted, he didn't think the French had given the Algerians enough credit for the restoration? Or because he was standing next to another ghost, the brave ex-archbishop of Algiers, Monseigneur Henri Teissier, he who received the phone call on 21 May 1996 that the seven monks of Tibherine – now immortalised on film – had been decapitated? "Three of their heads were hanging from a tree near a petrol station," he told me then. "The other four heads were lying on the grass beneath." Now the French suspect the Algerian army tried to free the monks from their GIA captors, killed them by mistake and covered up their disaster by burying the bullet-riddled bodies and leaving their heads behind as another GIA "crime".

The next Catholic edifice to be dusted off will be the basilica of Saint Augustine at Annaba. For, like it or not, the French have fallen in love with Algeria again – and the Algerians have fallen in love with the profits of a new relationship with France. Former French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just been here to support long-term industrial projects – a new Renault factory is soon to open on the outskirts of Algiers – and Claude Guéant has been chatting up President Bouteflika on behalf of Nicolas Sarkozy. And, now that France can join in the famous "struggle against terror", ex-General Christian Quesnot has been visiting, while the Élysée has been busily handing over maps of French colonial minefields to the Algerian army. French and Algerian chiefs of staff regularly talk on the phone. Can this new affair last? In Blida, the ancient guerrilla fighters are trying to persuade the mayor to rename local streets after the seven Algerians killed by French troops in a July 1961 anti-French demonstration. Other guardians of the war – the one before the "National Tragedy", of course – have been moving the grisly old French guillotine to the Tlemcen museum so that "the youth of Algeria realise that their independence came not as a gift but at a price". In his last interview, the surviving French servant of this infernal machine explained the importance of speed when decapitating Algerians – for if the victim struggled, the blade might not cut his neck and it would be necessary to finish the job with a knife.

And all the while, the guns can be heard from Tizi Ouzou. Yes, sure enough, the Islamists are still out there, the GIA having long ago morphed into "al-Qa'ida in the Maghreb", currently fighting off a division of Algerian troops beyond the Berber capital, subject to a rattisage of armoured vehicles and helicopter attacks, the villages marooned without food and with all local mobile phones shut down by the government. "Twelve terrorists killed", a headline reads in Al-Moujahed.

And where have we heard that before? Why, in Iraq, of course. And in Afghanistan today. And throughout the "National Tragedy". Only "terrorists", mark you. The army is rumoured to have killed Abdelmalek Droukdel (alias Abu Mousaab Abdelouadoud), al-Qa'ida's top man in Algeria, and thus, according to the daily Liberte, "the operation ... constitutes a turning-point in the anti-terrorist struggle". But we've heard all this before too, after the government killed the "monster" Antan Zouabia and after they shot Droukdel's predecessor Nabil Sahrawi. No "embeds" with the Algerian army of course.

And if rumour is correct, there's every good reason for this: because US Special Forces officers from their camp near Tamanrasset are said to be "observing" the Kabyle operation. Why not? After all, only last week Washington's top military commander in the region, US Africa Command General David Hogg, was showering praises on the Algerian security services for their "impressive progress and leadership" in fighting "terrorism". He wants more co-ordination with neighbouring Arab states – which is why Tunisia's top intelligence spook, one of Tunisian dictator Ben Ali's most trusted acolytes, turned up to talk to his Algerian opposite number this week.

And what, I asked Naseera Dutour, did she think when she heard US officers praising the security services who tortured and killed so many Algerians during the civil war? She pulls out an old photograph of her 21-year old son Amin, kidnapped on 31 January 1997 (he would be 35 today), never seen again, and holds it to her bosom like a shield. She speaks in French but only one word escapes her lips, loudly and with great emotion. "Scandale!"