Counterterrorism as an instrument of normalization in foreign policy: Sudan and Algeria in the Global War on Terror

The Global War on Terror (GWOT), launched by the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, presented countries all over the world with threats and opportunities, and each one tried to adapt to the situation and exploit it to its own advantage. Apparently, the choice was clear: either stand with Washington or against it. What we argue in this paper, through a comparison between the Algerian and Sudanese case, is that before 9/11 counterterrorism had already become a common ground for cooperation between the U.S. and regimes it deemed “untouchable” in the 1990s. The GWOT accelerated and intensified this trend, but this didn’t result – at least for the cases considered – into the forging of new strategic partnerships, due to domestic “red lines”, enduring mistrust and path-dependence from traditional regional alliances.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nuovi Autoritarismi e Democrazie Diritto Istituzioni Società (NAD-DIS)
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.54103/2612-6672/30256
Primary Topic
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Counterterrorism as an instrument of normalization in foreign policy: Sudan and Algeria in the Global War on Terror

Giorgio Musso
Nuovi Autoritarismi e Democrazie Diritto Istituzioni Società (NAD-DIS)
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
article

Counterterrorism as an instrument of normalization in foreign policy: Sudan and Algeria in the Global War on Terror

Giorgio Musso
article en

Abstract

The Global War on Terror (GWOT), launched by the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, presented countries all over the world with threats and opportunities, and each one tried to adapt to the situation and exploit it to its own advantage. Apparently, the choice was clear: either stand with Washington or against it. What we argue in this paper, through a comparison between the Algerian and Sudanese case, is that before 9/11 counterterrorism had already become a common ground for cooperation between the U.S. and regimes it deemed “untouchable” in the 1990s. The GWOT accelerated and intensified this trend, but this didn’t result – at least for the cases considered – into the forging of new strategic partnerships, due to domestic “red lines”, enduring mistrust and path-dependence from traditional regional alliances.

Nuovi Autoritarismi e Democrazie Diritto Istituzioni Società (NAD-DIS)Vol. 7(2)
Roma Tre University (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.