Perhaps it was not from Tangier, “the outstretched hand of Africa towards Europe,” that Nicolas Sarkozy should have launched his “urgent and solemn appeal” to establish a Union of the Mediterranean, but rather from Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. Most of the themes developed in his speech at the Marshan Royal Palace, along with the major tenets of his reflections, find indeed a, mostly dramatic, illustration in the urgency of the stakes and the risks inherent in the Lebanese presidential election.
The involvement, seen as conciliatory by some and as interference by others, of numerous Mediterranean countries in Lebanon’s inextricable situation certainly reinforces the President of the Republic’s perception of what this region of the world represents, where he wishes to foresee “the future of Europe.” When he estimates that in the “Mediterranean it will be decided whether civilizations and religions will engage in the most terrible of wars,” does he think of this latent confrontation between two seemingly irreconcilable political visions, which now oppose “majority” and “opposition” in the country of the Cedars? From this Lebanese epicenter, could dangerous aftershocks, symptomatic reflections of fundamental divergences, be capable of reaching beyond the region, affecting all continents of the planet? In mentioning this Mediterranean world “torn between hatred and fraternity,” Nicolas Sarkozy surely has in mind the report deemed “alarming” by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, on the rearmament of militias around Beirut, particularly those of Hezbollah, “proven” and largely “facilitated by Syria,” as indicated by the UN report. To praise, as the Head of State did in Morocco, the merits of the “dialogue of cultures,” the official title, let’s remember, of the Francophonie Summit held in Beirut in 2002, and to aspire to make this region a “meeting point between Islam and Christianity,” do these not betray an admission of impotence in themselves, a denial of resignation before the manifest, recurring degradation of both of these precepts? What weight will Sarkozy’s “political will” and sincerely presented determination—two qualities he hopes will help transcend past sufferings—hold in the realization of this project if, as he cannot ignore, some countries in this part of the world find more interest in maintaining tensions, or even initiate policies based on “preemptive assassinations,” as Bernard Kouchner put it? The Head of State allegedly told journalists on the flight back from Morocco that Lebanon is the “only country in the region where multifaith dialogue is a reality that must not falter.” Unfortunately shaky reality, however, allows us to pose a crucial point: on the outcome—peaceful or bloody—of the electoral imbroglio in Lebanon, will largely depend the favorable conditions for establishing this “Union,” even if it is as informal and of variable geometry as possible. In this sense, the situation in the country of the Cedars constitutes a full-scale test for this gamble based on “boldness and courage,” as stated in the presidential speech. Indeed, it’s hard to see what the Heads of State and Government of the Mediterranean countries invited by Nicolas Sarkozy to meet in June next year in France could discuss if the Lebanese situation were to deteriorate. If, on the contrary, Lebanon should—miraculously—emerge from the quagmire, the Elysée could claim a visionary strategy, the one that, as Seneca said, does not shy away from things considered difficult simply because we dare not face them.
