At the beginning of 1957. the U.N. General Assembly called for a “peaceful, democratic and just solution” for the “situation” in Algeria, and without condemning anyone, gave the French and the Algerian nationalists time to work things out. Last week, on the eve of another Assembly meeting, the French brought forth a draft version of their long-promised “framework law” to settle Algeria’s future. Totally unacceptable, the Arabs called it, and in fact the law was something of a mouse—small, grey, and of indeterminate shape. But so deep run the divisions within Premier Maurice Bourges-Maunoury’s government that the ministers themselves could not agree between two proposals before them, and in the final draft left all points of difference vague and unresolved. Said one French Deputy: “We cannot make war because it would offend the
Left, and we cannot make peace because it would offend the Right.”
The ministers’ vague plan redefines Algeria (estimated pop. 8,750,000 Moslems, 1,200,000 Europeans) as “an integral part of France,” leaves defense, foreign policy, finance and justice to Paris, provides for splitting Algeria into three to six locally autonomous territories, some predominantly European, others predominantly Moslem. As a concession to the Arabs, the “double-college” voting procedure, under which Europeans elect as many representatives as the far more numerous Moslems, was eliminated.
A conservative Senator at once announced himself “ferociously hostile” to a provision for a “coordinating” federal assembly on the ground that this would surely become a nucleus for secession.
While Foreign Minister Christian Pineau flew off to enlist support for the idea in six South American capitals and Washington, the Arabs said that they are interested in hearing only one word—independence—and that each day without it widens the gap between Arab and Frenchman, drives moderate Arabs to relentless choices, and makes more difficult an eventual reconciliation in peace.
Prospect: a strong resolution in the U.N. condemning French intransigence. The U.S. has not yet made up its mind how to vote on it.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Introducing the 2024 TIME100 Next
- Sabrina Carpenter Has Waited Her Whole Life for This
- What Lies Ahead for the Middle East
- Why It's So Hard to Quit Vaping
- Jeremy Strong on Taking a Risk With a New Film About Trump
- Our Guide to Voting in the 2024 Election
- The 10 Races That Will Determine Control of the Senate
- Column: How My Shame Became My Strength
Contact us at letters@time.com