Algeria in weightlessness: A semiotic-discursive reading of a presidential press conference
- Misleading representation of reality:
- Alignment/non-alignment:
- Anti-imperialist friend of the imperialists:
- Rejection of Wagner, support for the Polisario:
- Qarun's money and love of principles:
- Opportunism versus universalism:
The aim is to examine the articulation between the content of the presidential speech and the visual semiotics of this conference. In the first and second parts, the analytical approach focused on the set of non-verbal signs that participate in the staging of power and the construction of meaning. The third part was devoted to the president's discourse content and his manipulation strategy. In this fourth and final part, we will attempt to analyse the president's messages on the key foreign policy issues addressed during this media event and the most notable contradictions in his speech.
Political manipulation can tolerate a certain distance from the truth, but it cannot survive obvious contradictions that discredit the author. In this press conference, President Tebboune's speech revealed several internal contradictions and others with reality, exposing a state communication strategy incapable of convincing or even manipulating, as well as highlighting the head of state's inability to construct and articulate a coherent discourse. Below, we present the six most obvious contradictions in his speech:
Misleading representation of reality:
A notable contradiction in the president's statements lies in an assertion that is radically opposed to reality. ‘You ask me if we have attracted hostility, but we have no hostility towards anyone.’ This statement seems clearly disconnected from known geopolitical reality. In fact, the whole world knows that Algeria unilaterally broke off diplomatic relations with Morocco and is currently experiencing major diplomatic crises with several other countries, including France, Mali, the United Arab Emirates and Libya.
These multilateral tensions are testimony to an external context marked by clear conflicts and oppositions, which directly contradicts the idea of an Algeria without hostilities towards anyone. This discrepancy between official discourse and concrete facts illustrates once again the president's difficulties in producing a coherent and credible message on the international stage, reinforcing the impression of political communication riddled with ambiguities and lies, and even marked by absolute denial that acts as a psychological defence mechanism, whereby the Algerian government unconsciously refuses to acknowledge a reality perceived as unacceptable, threatening or traumatic.
The president's statements denying the existence of enemies can be interpreted as a denial that could serve to protect the country's image of strength and stability in the face of a much more complex and conflictual geopolitical reality. The fact that, in parallel, the symbolic background of the conference, in particular this map ‘uprooted’ from any surrounding geographical context, reinforces this distance from reality seems to corroborate this hypothesis. This isolated, floating map could function as a visual support for this strategy of psychological defence, symbolically allowing one to abstract oneself from a regional environment perceived as threatening or chaotic.
In short, this dual gesture — idealised discourse denying hostilities and deterritorialised iconographic representation — can be seen as an unconscious attempt to avoid the psychological collapse associated with confronting real threats or internal fragilities. This defence mechanism allows a unified and powerful image to be maintained, but at the cost of a worrying detachment from concrete reality and geopolitical challenges.
Alignment/non-alignment:
Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune proudly recalls that Algerians have based their doctrine of international relations on the principle of non-alignment that runs in their blood. Is this principle really a fundamental element of Algerian foreign policy since its independence, inscribed in its history and its struggle against colonialism? First and foremost, it should be remembered that positive neutrality, the successor to non-alignment, aimed to guarantee each country freedom of judgement independent of regional or ideological alliances, thus avoiding blind alignment. It was a laudable attempt to moralise international politics. However, as Abdullah Laroui argues in his work Algeria and the Moroccan Sahara, the non-aligned movement was in reality a classic alliance between certain states considered, rightly or wrongly, to be regional leaders. These states, explains the Moroccan historian, acted in the image of the bloc leaders against whom the pioneers of neutralism rose up, resorting like them to intrigue, blackmail and corruption. If Yugoslavia is the country that remained closest to the original inspiration of neutralism, no country has subverted it as much as Algeria.
Is it true that Algeria was, as President Tebboune claims, a non-aligned country that refused to align itself with either of the two major blocs (Western or Communist) during the Cold War, and more broadly to subscribe to a logic of independence and strategic autonomy in its international relations? Historical reality shows that this independence was built in part thanks to a de facto alignment with the Eastern bloc, particularly in terms of military and political cooperation during the Cold War. Boumediene's decision to move closer to the Soviet Union and his hostile stance towards the United States prompted US leaders to classify the new Algeria as part of the other bloc, despite its official ‘non-alignment’. The 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab countries led Algeria to unilaterally break off diplomatic relations with the United States.
When President Tebboune asserts that non-alignment is a founding principle of Algeria's foreign policy, he contradicts the historical reality that Algeria received crucial support from the Soviet Union and its allies, both during the war of independence and in the early years of state-building, as well as in the intrigues it has continued to weave since independence against Morocco and its territorial integrity. This close cooperation does not correspond to a position of strict non-alignment, but rather to a clear and firm ideological and geopolitical alignment.
Anti-imperialist friend of the imperialists:
During his press conference, President Tebboune mentioned imperialism twice in relation to the Moroccan Sahara: first by stating that renouncing support for the Sahrawis would be tantamount to becoming imperialist, then suggesting that any other position, with the exception of Algeria's, belongs to imperialism, which amounts to labelling countries that support the Moroccan position, including the United States, as imperialist. However, this position seems paradoxical when, in the same speech, he talks about the Palestinian question and recalls that Algiers played a role as mediator by bringing together the Palestinian factions for a reconciliation dialogue, only to say that Algiers received thanks from the United States, considered imperialist in his reasoning, for this initiative.
Listening to the president proudly proclaim Algeria's anti-imperialism, one wonders how the assertion of borders inherited from French imperialism can be considered anti-imperialism. Furthermore, how does the fact of having inherited, without consulting the populations concerned, the Moroccan Eastern Sahara under French rule, authorise Algeria to deny Morocco the recovery of its sovereignty over the Western Sahara, under Spanish rule?
The Algerian anti-imperialism proclaimed by President Tebboune does not correspond to either historical reality or a coherent current foreign policy doctrine. It is now nothing more than a worn-out slogan, empty of real content, which no longer manages to mobilise or convince the new Algerian or African generations. This position, shaken by its own contradictions, now seems to be nothing more than mediocre rhetoric, disconnected from contemporary geopolitical issues and the aspirations of the Maghreb peoples.
Rejection of Wagner, support for the Polisario:
When addressing the crisis in Mali, President Tebboune expressed his rejection of mercenaries near the Algerian borders, singling out the Russian paramilitary group Wagner. However, this position marks another glaring contradiction that calls into question the political coherence and intellectual honesty of the Algerian regime, as it denies Wagner what it grants to the Polisario.
The fact that Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune has expressed his rejection of Wagner Group mercenaries near the Algerian borders raises a necessary perspective on the situation at the Moroccan borders, especially the presence of another mercenary group and its armed mobilisation, financed and organised by Algeria. The Polisario has camps in the Tindouf region of Algeria and recruits fighters, often considered by Morocco and some observers to be ‘mercenaries’ due to their weaponry, remuneration and instrumentalisation by Algeria.
The Polisario is accused by Moroccans, analysts and political figures of being involved in terrorist activities, as well as collaborating with regional terrorist groups. Algeria, as the main supporter of the Polisario, is criticised for arming, financing and mobilising these militias against Morocco, which contradicts Algeria's official position of non-intervention and peaceful policy in the region.
Thus, Algeria's rejection of foreign mercenaries such as Wagner on the country's north-eastern borders contrasts with the complex and controversial reality of Algerian support for the Polisario's armed militias on the south-eastern borders with Morocco. This situation fuels persistent diplomatic tensions and highlights the hypocrisy of Algeria's stance, which condemns certain armed groups while supporting others within a logic of artificial and prolonged regional conflict.
Qarun's money and love of principles:
Another fundamental contradiction in the president's speech lies in his claim that ‘Algeria refuses to interfere in the internal affairs of its neighbours... We are not aligned with either side.’ With this statement, he suggests that Algeria maintains a balanced, neutral and impartial stance between the different parties, including between Morocco and the Polisario Front in the Sahara conflict. This neutrality contrasts with his acknowledgement of a major material and financial commitment to the Polisario. This is a glaring contradiction that is difficult to hide, especially when he claims that the costly support for the Polisario is perfectly in line with the fundamental principles to which Algeria adheres.
Admitting to having spent a fortune solely for the sake of principles implies a two-level interpretation: on the first level (what Tebboune wants to show), sacrificing billions of dollars to remain faithful to his values. A rhetorical way of saying, ‘I did not allow myself to be bought’ or ‘I do not betray my convictions, even at the cost of enormous losses.’ On the second level, what can be suspected behind the “noble” justification relating to “principles” is that there are hidden interests, geopolitical issues of power, influence and calculations of interests. In other words, the president invokes principles to give moral legitimacy to choices that are in fact strategic.
In political communication rhetoric, this manipulation technique is called ‘moral rationalisation’; it consists of presenting an act motivated by interests under a moral guise, as if it were inspired by ethics. Did President Tebboune really want to make the Algerian people and international public opinion believe that the colossal sums spent over five decades in favour of the Polisario are an act of sacrifice and commitment for the sake of principles?
The fact that the Algerian head of state has acknowledged spending colossal sums to support the Polisario in order to destabilise Morocco testifies to the deeply strategic and geopolitical nature of this commitment. This is not simply an act guided by altruistic principles or generous support for an ‘oppressed people,’ but rather an investment considered vital and profitable in the long term for Algerian national interests. No state in the world mobilises significant public resources solely for moral or ideological reasons; even public development aid, often described as an act of solidarity, is in reality conditioned by calculations of political, economic or strategic interests. Thus, support for the Polisario Front must be understood above all as a geopolitical manoeuvre aimed at asserting regional influence, containing Morocco's geopolitical emergence and strengthening Algeria's position in a sensitive area.
Opportunism versus universalism:
In explaining that his policy is based on principles of solidarity and support for the oppressed, the president fell into another absurd contradiction. He declared: ‘Our principles are our principles. If someone oppresses another person next to me, I tell them to stop that oppression... do not oppress anyone next to me’ (meaning under my gaze, in my living space or in my environment). But when it is between you and him, then it is your business. The statement reveals that the policy is conditioned by geographical proximity and the notion of neighbourhood. In other words, the former Mecca of revolutionaries agrees to intervene and defend the oppressed as long as these conflicts take place within its borders and the oppression occurs in its immediate vicinity. On the other hand, when oppression takes place far from its borders, it becomes “other people's business” and ceases to concern it.
This position is all the more paradoxical given that the president had previously established an equivalence between Algerian support for the Sahrawis and the Palestinian people, even though neither the latter nor Israel are within its borders. This highlights an inconsistency between the rhetoric of a universal commitment based on principles of justice and solidarity, and a political reality in which geographical and strategic criteria are decisive. Algerian support policy oscillates between a long-suffering opportunism, guided by security interests and influence limited to its immediate environment, and a supposedly assumed universalism, guided by hypocritical principles or empty slogans that sing of unconditional human solidarity.
Another obvious contradiction arises when the president asserts that there is no country more pragmatic than Algeria, while insisting on maintaining a firm stance, especially in the conflict with Morocco and Mali, showing an unwavering attachment to principles he considers non-negotiable.
Regarding this great paradox, part of the interview was marked by direct exchanges with a journalist who criticised Algeria's stubbornness on certain diplomatic issues, especially its support for the Polisario and the question of the Moroccan Sahara. To defend Algeria's position, Tebboune found no other recourse than to utter falsehoods, mistakenly insisting that Western Sahara would be recognised by many countries and that Algeria would never renounce its principles. Rejecting any renunciation of support for the Polisario, President Tebboune's responses seemed categorical, but were not based on a detailed analysis of current diplomatic challenges or a pragmatic vision of reconciliation or appeasement. This rigidity, which is not based on any authentic principle, corresponds to an outdated tactic aimed at maintaining a prolonged diplomatic crisis with no visible solution in the short term.
President Tebboune took advantage of this media event to reaffirm Algeria's firm and sovereign stance on foreign policy, insisting on regional peace, non-interference and the resolute defence of Algeria's position on sensitive issues. However, he adopted a defensive tone in response to criticism of certain diplomatic setbacks. The apparent contradictions in his speech reveal such inconsistency that they damage the credibility and coherence of the political message, raising doubts about the sincerity and clarity of the head of state's intentions and risking undermining the confidence of national public opinion and international partners.
These contradictions also illustrate the tensions inherent in Algerian foreign policy, which, in seeking to defend a traditionally anti-imperialist doctrine faithful to the principle of non-alignment, oscillates between ideological affirmation – the rejection of any imperialist influence and the defence of sovereign principles – and the need to establish alliances or maintain relations with world powers, such as the United States, in order to preserve the country's strategic interests.
While President Abdelmadjid Tebboune's regular meetings with the press are a form of political communication aimed at ensuring transparency, while at the same time reinforcing the presidential image and discourse in an official setting, with both national and international strategic reach, President Tebboune did not provide a clear argument or in-depth analysis of the complexity of his country's diplomatic relations, especially with Mali and Morocco, at his last meeting with the media. Presidential communication, poorly controlled in form, seems to be completely disconnected in terms of the substance of the issues, tensions and concrete political realities to which it sought to respond.