Algeria’s military intervention outside its borders and its size depends to the nature of the threats to the security of its borders and its national security as a whole, especially in the absence of international threats such as a large-scale (regional) war, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies said.
The centre, which published a study on July 7, entitled “The Algerian Attitude Towards The Libyan Crisis: Between Change and Continuity”, suggests that Algeria, if it intervenes militarily, will limit itself to the penetration of short distances outside its borders, either to chase terrorist groups or to protect the tribes living in its borders, and prevent them from turning into rear bases for these groups. As for the possibility of participating in the multinational peace forces, it will remain a mortgaged option, with calculations of benefits and costs for Algerian national security.
Regarding the Libyan crisis, which is the file that was discussed in the Doha-based centre, the research paper states that; “Algeria will likely continue to work to exploit its diplomatic weight, which is not historically biased” while hinting at the possibility of military intervention to protect its national security.
“Ultimately, it appears that Algeria seeks to keep on the same distance that separated it from all parties to the conflict, whether they are local or regional”, the study explained.
The study mentioned under the sub-title “The Determinants Of The Algerian Position On The Libyan Crisis” that; “The Algerian position on the Libyan crisis is based on a set of principles which derived from the traditional security doctrine inherited by Algeria, since its independence from French colonialism, and this doctrine is based on a set of “rejections”, most notably No to the violation of state sovereignty and interference in their internal affairs, No to foreign interference in internal conflicts, No to the military option to settle them, No to the interference of the Algerian army outside the country’s borders. Independence is a central value in the perceptions of Algerian decision-making, and it is closely linked to the legacy of the liberation war”.
The study stopped at the limits of change and evidence of continuity in the Algerian position, based on what was stated in the draft amendment of the constitution, which includes an article that allows sending military units outside the borders.
“It was not related to an objective constitutional impediment, but it is always related to a tradition of practices, in which history is mutually reinforcing with identity. with the consciousness of the external security threats by the Algerian decision-maker, therefore, the constitutional amendment may not constitute a helpful variable in examining the limits of change and continuity in the Algerian position on the Libyan crisis, as argued by proponents of the hypothesis that the amendment may open the way for Algerian military intervention in Libya; rather, arguments should be considered outside the context of the debate on the constitution”.
The study makes some hypotheses regarding the possibility of military intervention in Libya, and says, “It is important that the balance of external forces that are involved in the Libyan conflict should be taken into account. It is a factor that greatly influences the option of Algeria’s military intervention in Libya. Therefore, Algeria’s choice regarding intervention appears a limited option, and its intervention would void its call to consider the military settlement a failed option in resolving the Libyan crisis.
“On the other hand, Algeria cannot stand against the internationally recognized government of National Accord; because this denotes its adherence to international legitimacy, and in the context of Algeria’s appreciation of the balance of powers in the Libyan conflict, the economic motivation in the perceptions of the Algerian decision-maker, along with security and geopolitical motives, cannot be ignored. The option of constitutionalizing the dispatch of military forces outside the border appears to be part of efforts to gain control over the management of possible future conflict outcomes against Algeria”.