When
I was a civil servant, my colleagues used to call me “the archivist”, in order to
tease me a bit. Indeed, I liked to classify files by color. It was like a kind
of daily wake-up call to prevent me from being taken by surprise with respect
to matters of high importance.
The files in progress of high importance were filed in white folders;
medium-importance files were filed in red folders. The colors yellow, blue, and
green were used for the sake of playing the role of deception. This
classification allowed me (and necessarily the hierarchy) to catch up with
unexpected matters and issues.
In
Morocco, households tend to keep stored in remote corners of their houses or
flats things they really don’t need. One would find all kinds of articles,
bills, nails, hammers, pieces of cloth, needles, pens short of ink, and,
sometimes, talismans and amulets. Gad El Maleh made a very inspired gag about
this phenomenon. And he is right, because keeping archives in order means that
incredible objects can be used one day.
Years
later, I had a different perception of the archives. In the United States, for
example, I learned that there is a task force, a kind of worker caterpillar, in
many American diplomatic missions in charge of collecting information
classified as propaganda or public mood inspirations. The task force’s job
consists of storing information that the public in the countries of
accreditation like to share for the sake of making up their minds about
political or social issues.
The
proponents of such a practice defend the idea that jokes, gags, and rumors
might be an excellent barometer for assessing the state of mind of people and
their relationship to politics. They provide additional material for political
planning and the design of scenarios that can prevent being faced with
unpleasant surprises with respect to bilateral relations with partner or
adversary countries.
The
adage is that there is no garbage bin in politics and diplomacy. To use a more
academic description, we can say that the public transcript allows political
strategists to properly gauge the hidden script, the signifier, and the
signified to use Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and the unthought and the
through to use Mohammed Arkoun (2002). In short, preaching the false in order
to have the truth.
Archives
as an open secret
In
the introduction of his book WAR (2024), Bob Woodward reveals that he had,
along with his friend Carl Bernstein, interviewed Donald Trump in 1989, on the
sidelines of a gala dinner in New York. Trump wasn’t very interested in
politics, but he said anything could happen. The main thing, according to him,
was to never give up when you have a project in mind. He insisted that people
should always trust their instincts.
The
interview was not published at the time, as the audio recording was stored
somewhere and forgotten in the archives. It was not until 2024 that Bob
Woodward found the interview and used it in the preamble to his book. This
story reveals that there’s a kind of correlation between policy planning and
flea market policy.
In
the same book, Woodward reveals that during the COVID-19 pandemic, President
Putin had a phone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Putin
reportedly told her that while in isolation for security reasons, he had a
chance to take a look at archives and maps of the Russian Empire and ended up
discovering many interesting things.
We
now understand the underpinnings of the speech that Putin had already given in
Munich in 2007, on the occasion of the Conference on Security in Europe.
Putin’s confidence was a kind of reminder to the German chancellor (of East
German origin) that he knew more about Germany when he was head of the KGB
office in Berlin.
At
the time, Putin had maneuvered to save compromising archives by playing on the
diversion and the impatience of the crowd to finish with The Wall instead of
retrieving documents to find out why the Wall had been built in the first
place. The Germans with Angela Merkel were pleased to enjoy the ecstasy brought
about by the bewitching notes of Scorpions (Wind of Change, 1991). The Wall in
this specific case is perceived differently by Scorpions compared to Pink
Floyd’s One (The Wall, 1979).
And
then, another virtual wall was built between Europe and Russia via Ukraine.
This virtual wall ignites all sorts of hidden scripts. Face to face, we have a
cunning virtuoso, Vladimir Putin, and a gifted actor-comedian, Volodymyr
Zelensky. However, the two protagonists play in front of an audience that is
not there for the sake of having a good time but rather for watching the stage
while keeping their hand on the trigger.
However,
Putin might have forgotten to tell the German Chancellor that during the first
months of the Covid pandemic, Donald Trump had sent him a batch of Abbott Point
Care Covid test machines for his personal use at the time as the virus was
spreading all over Russia. It goes to say that that archives and little
confidences could be a major source of concern for decision-makers and not just
anecdotes to be exchanged for the sake of having fun.
Moreover,
closer to home, is an example that depicts amnesia and schizophrenia in
decision-makers’ behavior. Indeed, when Bahija Simou, the former head of the
Directorate of Royal Documents, said on February 21, 2023, that Morocco
possessed archives of documents confirming the country’s roots and history in
its Sahara regions, including the Eastern Sahara, the phobia took hold of
Algerian decision-makers and their media outlets.
They
expressed, in different ways, their outrage and condemnation, sparing neither
words nor threats to challenge the arguments of the Moroccan official. Algeria
felt the grass being cut under its feet; it no longer had the initiative in
nurturing confusion on the political and strategic chessboard in North Africa
and worldwide.
A
year later, on the occasion of French President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit
to Morocco (28 October 2024), information was spread that he had promised that
France would hand over 2.5 million documents dating from the pre-colonial
period to Morocco. It was not the first time. The Center of Diplomatic Archives
of France had already handed over 60,000 images of digital files to Morocco
relating to Moroccan tribes in 2022. Fans of military ethnology must rub their
hands together for better or for worse to enjoy taking a look at all this
valuable material when the promise is fully implemented.
There
is fire in the house in Algeria, because this time, the announcement coincides
with France’s recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over its southern provinces
(an expression already Jacques Chirac used in 2008 and even better Nicolas
Sarkozy upgraded talking about Moroccan Western Sahara in 2018). The Algerian
decision-makers’ panic panic is understandable insofar as the memory rent that
Algeria makes its priesthood is losing its relevance as a business and as an
instrument of remote manipulation to impact Algeria’s relationship with France.
Algerian
blackmail has proven to be useless. Furthermore, the Algerian thesis on its
existence as a sovereign state before the French conquest in 1830 evaporated,
as did the dream of seeing a sixth phantom entity take shape in the
Maghreb-sub-Saharan Africa space.
Commentators,
including Algerians, have been revealing for years that in the battle that
Algeria is waging against Morocco on the issue of proven state traditions,
former president Houari Boumediene advised Algerians not to take the path of
historical archives. He reportedly explained that Algeria would risk
discovering that it had never existed as an entity before 1962.
Boumediene
was right because the Evian Agreement poses problems for Algerian
sovereigntists, who cannot believe that they have to swallow their pride and be
more realistic with respect to the history of North Africa.
In
the same way, these sovereigntists sink into denial and haste by committing
acts that they regret eventually. This happened with the arrest of the writer
Boualem Sansal, a French-Algerian national, last week. He indeed shared a
comment about the lack of a state tradition in Algeria and about the borders
with Morocco inherited from French colonization.
Those
of the researchers who tried not to stick to Boumediene’s advice were surprised
by the stark truth as they embarked on the adventure of taking up the
challenge. Those who have decided to close their eyes and dive into the river
of bared truth find themselves entangled in the mud instead of swimming in
smooth water to revamp their mindset and turn the page of historical
stubbornness.
However,
when it comes to archives, diplomatic practice offers edifying and incredible
stories. They describe the overzealousness and phobia that some bureaucrats
nurture. They fear being reprimanded by their political and bureaucratic
hierarchy for ill-handling issues they are in charge of. For the sake of
argument, I will refer to a couple of cases.
The
first case consists of a scene that resembles the most insipid movie fictions:
we are watching a diplomat pushing a foreign colleague during a family photo
with the president of the country of accreditation. This move resulted in a
stampede that the audience couldn’t appreciate at all. More surprising, it
showed the first diplomat elbowing his way to get his shoulder to hit the
president’s and ousting the others at the same time.
Later,
the unmannered diplomat explained his gesture by the fact that his country had
been the first to have recognized the independence of the country of accreditation.
Here too, archives have indirectly invited into the scene. The diplomat risked
being reprimanded by his capital if the family photo wasn’t spotted in the
midst of his other colleagues.
The
problem was that by sneaking in the middle, this indelicate diplomat squeezed
his colleagues to some point without paying attention and ended up like the
turkey in the farce. For a few days, this behavior was a core subject in the
late-night chats among diplomats, who combined their boredom with their impatience
to vegetate in diplomatic idleness.
The
second case deals with the importance of audiovisual archives. To illustrate
this, I refer to the rule of precedence, which is commonly presented as a
draconian condition in the protocol. Indeed, in countries with a proven
diplomatic tradition, the rule of precedence is meticulously implemented.
But
sometimes there is a breach of the rule when neophytes in politics and
diplomacy try to show off their supposed knowledge in the field of protocol.
The example referred to above is an exception insofar as the spotted diplomat
hails from a country whose civilizational imprints still mark our time.
If
there is an exception in terms of protocol, it is at the initiative of the host
country, which intends to send a message of friendship, peace, and hope in the
future of bilateral relations. However, everything is well studied so as not to
offend the feelings of other countries. Often, the latter are informed in
advance.
The
audiovisual archives are full of examples in which precedence played a trick on
the sorcerer’s apprentices. The precedence was meant to send political and
diplomatic messages. This was the case during the informal meeting organized on
November 1, 2024, on the sidelines of the celebration of the 70th anniversary
of the outbreak of the war of independence in Algeria in 1954).
A
family photo is taken. We see, in order of settings, the Algerian head of
state, on his right the leader of the Polisario, then, on his left, but a
little further on, the president of the Libyan presidential council, and
finally, a little further back, the Tunisian head of state.
The
anomaly comes from the fact that the state label attributed to the Polisario
leader is not recognized by Libya and Tunisia. Informed observers read it as a
demonstration of disarray by Algerian decision-makers after the about-face of
their representative at the United Nations before the Security Council. For the
record, the latter preferred a stampede instead of openly voting against
Resolution 2756 of October 30, 2024, on Moroccan Western Sahara, which was
detrimental to Algeria’s direct involvement in the issue.
The
third case offers an even richer interpretation in terms of plot and confusion.
It consists of photographic or digital archives that make the headlines and
make history instantly. They are part of the framework of bluff and
manipulation, if not of political or diplomatic consumption. Two examples can
feed this argument. On the one hand, the protocol arrangement during the
meeting in Moscow between President Vladimir Putin and President Emmanuel
Macron in 2022.
The
meeting room was organized in such a way that the two presidents sat facing
each other, separated by several meters, at the meeting table. President Putin
wanted to send a clear message to his French counterpart as a matter of
protestation against his statements on the Russian military intervention in
Ukraine and the need to impose a draconian embargo against Moscow to force it
to withdraw from the Ukrainian territories conquered by force since 2022
(Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkov, and Mykolaiv).
On
the other hand, the aborted family photo attempt was on the occasion of the 7th
Summit of the Forum of Gas Producing Countries in Algeria in February/March
2024. Taking advantage of the presence of the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad
Al-Thani, and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi (who
died in May 2024 in a helicopter crash), the Algerian President, Abdelmajid
Tebboune, tried to push them to shake hands, but the Emir of Qatar withdrew his
hand furtively, placing his Algerian counterpart in an embarrassing situation.
The
maneuver smacked of political and diplomatic exploitation. The gesture was
unnecessary as Iran and Qatar do not appear to have any major diplomatic
differences. Ironically, the two countries share one of the world’s largest gas
fields, the North Field East, which is not much of a problem to exploit on
either side. Similarly, Qatar is well-known for being a respected mediator
between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbors and doesn’t need a mediator showing up
out of the blue.
Nothing
is innocent outside of the most politically correct behavior.
The
fourth case highlights the fact that diplomatic archives confirm that in the
age of information technology, political decision-makers’ behavior must be
carefully balanced. Otherwise, a dose of incompetence and amateurism will be
added to hasty moves that impact their credibility and sound visions.
Indeed,
the image becomes more talkative than a thousand archived documents. This is
partly true, one would be tempted to say. However, the fate reserved for the
image counts much more in the recording and perpetuation of the instant. In
this respect, the sluggish faces of the signatories of the capitulation agreements,
the schizophrenia of the decision-makers despised by their partners, and the
trembling hands of those who are forced to accept the conditions of surrender
deserve to be meditated.
It
goes without saying that these cases give goosebumps to the actors involved,
their peoples and historians, in terms of humiliation and loss of identity
landmarks within a turbulent international system full of the unexpected
actions, whose tectonic impact can overthrow regimes and state entities.
The
fifth example consists of archives in the form of legendary interviews. We see
heads of state outdoing renowned journalists or columnists; a kind of billiards
game where the winner is never who you may think.
The
journalistic ambush is paid dearly in one way or another—clever, clever, and a
half, like they say. There have been phases in the history of developing
countries where local journalists have been subjected to restraint in order not
to ask angry questions of their leadership, especially those that have a direct
impact on national interest or security.
The
sixth example consists of documents hacked and shared on the Web to exert
pressure, if not blackmail, on a recalcitrant partner. This happens when the
latter is pulled out of its strategic hibernation to play obstruction against a
hegemonic actor who underestimates his ability to react and retaliate when his
patience is running out.
The
precedents of Edward Snowden (2013), Julian Assange (2012-2019), and Chris
Coleman (2014) are an eloquent illustration of these practices that smell of
the sulfur of manipulation and bluffing. The three cases give manipulation and
bluff a meaning in which ethics and politics are played to neutralize each
other at the end of the exercise.
The
seventh case relates to the sound archives constituted by the revelations of
former leaders or personalities who have held senior positions in their
countries as well as those who have been international mediators in inter-state
conflicts.
The
most interesting leaks are those that have a “quest for redemption”
dimension. The leaders refer to it as being explained by emphasizing historical
phases during which they participated in the genesis and maturation of vital
decisions on the political and diplomatic chessboard. However, one must not be
fooled; all leaks are somehow negotiated. If a leak is accompanied by tangible
evidence, one can talk about a jackpot for the producer, the host, and the
actor of the unexpected leak.
The
eighth case depicts the archives classified as state secrets and which, by a
wave of a magic wand, are leaked. We are far from the scoops and the inspiring
magic of a Sherlock Holmes or an Arsène Lupin at the top of their art. Context,
timing, and objective come together to concoct a story whose beauty in terms of
seduction and mystification only fools the gullible of the last rain.
Among
the most puzzling archives in this regard are the speeches of the heads of
state, the ministers of foreign affairs, and the high-ranking military leaders.
A speech is never a piece of cake for anyone. Vigilance reaches a maximum level
of alert, and scoop hunters are on the alert. However, what is hallucinating is
that the lifespan of a speech is limited to the time allowed, the importance of
which is depend as on the quality of the audience.
People
are in a hurry. However, the genius of the team that makes the speech lies in
its ability to drown the fish, that is to say everything between the lines
without apparently saying anything. It is only later that the value of a speech
is revealed to the public.
The
ninth case concerns the archives that abound in the media, especially those of
radio and television. There are many gags that have made viewers and observers
swallow the bitter pill. I remember two of them. One: the scene in which US
President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat shake hands after the
signing in Washington in 1993 of the Declaration of Principles for Middle East
Peace Negotiations by Israel and the PLO under US patronage.
Nothing
special, except that when Yasser Arafat moved a little in the direction of
Shimon Peres (foreign minister) at the end of the stage and shook his hand, he
provoked a smirk from Yitzhak Rabin. This scene is legendary, from my point of
view, because this smile meant that Rabin thought that Yasser Arafat would have
gotten more political dividends if he had been inspired enough in the aftermath
of the signing by Anwar el-Sadat and Menachem Begin, under the patronage of
Jimmy Carter, of the peace agreements between Egypt and Israel in 1978. The
Palestinians would have covered eighty percent of the West Bank plus the Gaza
District after five years of self-government for the two territories, followed
by negotiations on the issues of refugees, borders, water, and the final status
of al-Quds (Jerusalem).
Two:
The scene where we see President Boris Yeltsin of Russia whispering in the ear
of Bill Clinton, the American president, a phrase that plunged the latter into
a legendary fit of laughter (1995) after the former called journalists being a
disaster. Surprised at first, the audience had no choice but to go on stage to
complete the set. This midnight circus in broad daylight was part of the
reshaping of the geopolitical chessboard in the aftermath of the collapse of
the USSR.
At
the time, some people made Boris Yeltsin look like a buffoon, when in reality,
he limited the damage of a Soviet empire that was going to lose everything in
the process. Yeltsin did it, as did Mikhail Gorbachev, whom history continues
to unjustly charge with what he never was. Yeltsin and Gorbachev had no choice.
In
doing so, they resembled Kemal Atatürk, who was forced to adopt the same
attitude to save the Ottoman Empire from being broken up and shrunk like a
feather. Atatürk was a party to the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which relatively
rectified the Treaty of Sevres (1920), which, if it had been accepted as such,
would have been a catastrophe for modern Turkiye.
What
would be the meaning of the archives in all this? They are an inexhaustible
source of facts that set the record straight in the perception and
intelligibility of interstate disputes and conflicts. They are important for
the study of social stratifications, the composition of the political elite,
and their participation or lack thereof in historical time and the existential
dimension that only people who lack expertise deny.
The
bureaucrat-archivist that I used to be would have pulled out a pile of bubble
shirts. He would reportedly start with his favorite color and note that Donald
Trump’s 1989 interview was a kind of premonition. It was recorded at the moment
when the USSR had begun its descent into hell.
An
era that is referred to as an epistemological break announcing the beginning of
a new world order. But above all, an era that was questioning the hegemony of a
political elite in the United States performing a consensual alternation to
power in the form of an open democratic game. Surprisingly, an outsider was
elected in 1993, Bill Clinton. Sixteen years later, another outsider was
elected in 2008, Barack Obama. Eight years later, the ultimate outsider was
elected in 2016, Donald Trump.
As
a bureaucrat-archivist, I would have added that when it comes to the outsider
on the 1989 list, another outsider has been propelled to the forefront in
Russia, Vladimir Putin. Fate once again led him, right now, to cross swords
with another outsider-returnee, Donald Trump. Two outsiders, vengeful by
nature, could finally bring a hint of wisdom to an upside-down world. We could
then confirm the hypothesis that extremes always end up pulling towards the
center to maintain balance and not sink into the void.
The
bureaucrat-archivist that I used to be would have followed up with an anecdotal
note saying that Vladimir Putin’s confidence to Angela Merkel mentioned earlier
was not an empty box of words. It reminded her of her ideological affiliation
before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990. Her election to the Bundestag in
the same year prepared her to be an outsider, fifteen years later, and to
become chancellor in 2005, at a time when outsiders were beginning to fill the
political chessboards in Europe and the United States.
As
a bureaucrat-archivist, I would have claimed that the election of Volodymyr
Zelensky in Ukraine, an outsider, in 2019 was intended to put an end to the
ping-pong game between supporters of close relations with Russia and supporters
of advanced relations with Europe and the United States. The bone of contention
over Ukraine’s accession to NATO is only a pretext.
Most
seasoned diplomats are convinced that a step in this direction would provoke a
repeat of the scenarios of the Second World War in 1939 and the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1962. This is why the narrative about the alleged existence of a Nazi
motivation behind Ukraine’s behavior is gaining influence among Russian
nationalists, who are fervent supporters of President Putin.
In
the same way, the threat of recourse to nuclear weapons in case of need, as
rehashed by President Poutine, is reminiscent of the missile episode in 1962,
which would have led to the outbreak of a third world war.
All
these outsiders have been unearthed to manage crises, such as the financial
crisis of 2008 or the rise of non-state actors who jeopardized the power of
state sovereigntists. These non-state actors were, for the most part, created
by counter-powers within sovereign states. The Deep State in all its glory that
outweighs the sorcerer’s apprentices who furnish the television screens to end
up suffocated by the heat of the recording studios.
As
a bureaucrat-archivist, I would have come to the conclusion that the archives
that certain colonial powers might hand over to their former colonies or
protectorates would sound the death knell for regimes that were reluctant to
jump on the bandwagon. New geopolitical configurations are emerging in
subsystems where this type of regime cannot accept the fact that their validity
period has expired. If they had not agreed to clean up their house, outsiders
would appear, and it would not be for the pleasure of praising them.
The
archives – then and again. They are revealed to the general public because they
enter a phase of politico-diplomatic bargaining in close relation to a crisis
or tension that is likely, in one way or another, to impact peace and security
in a given regional subsystem. They might be included in a script aimed at
redefining the hierarchy of state and non-state actors within the international
system globally, taking into consideration.
In
a final note, archivists, as was my case when I proudly assumed my role as a
civil servant. A role of diplomats who love propaganda to do their daily
shopping, or that of appointed decision-makers who enjoy playing political
bargaining – they represent a valuable source for the guardians of the temple, who,
at their own risk and peril, can participate, willingly or unwillingly, in
making or unmaking the tiny world in which they live.
