It is becoming increasingly difficult to be a Great Nation. France is currently experiencing this bitter reality in Lebanon, a country that it helped to establish in 1920. It is understandable why Paris would hesitate to contribute the bulk of the troops for a new UN force in southern Lebanon and, moreover, to take command of it. The risks in human losses, real in the absence of a clear mandate from Resolution 1701 regarding response to hostile acts, reinforce its uncertainties.
But a few months before presidential elections, whose significance everyone recognizes after the somewhat biased ones of April 2002, the concerns of political leaders might well have other roots. One can easily imagine the disastrous repercussions within France – probably unbearable for the public in media terms – of attacks on French soldiers under the blue helmet, repeating the tragic scenario of the Drakkar bombing in 1983. Not to mention the warnings that might be indirectly conveyed to France by terrorist groups. These groups might target, as in the 1980s, interests located on French territory or its nationals living abroad. Our neighbors from across the Rhine have suddenly become aware of this despite their meticulous attention to never being involved in a conflict outside the UN framework. The discovery of attempted terrorist acts in Germany itself has led Berlin officials to rule out any presence of the Bundeswehr on Lebanese soil.
France and Germany have thus been led to moderate, or even reduce, their political ambitions in light of the risks inherent in this crisis situation. This decision is all the more regrettable for France, which had made its contribution a key argument in the success of the ceasefire negotiations. The autonomy of political decision-making, so dear to General de Gaulle, who had entrusted its absolute guarantee to nuclear deterrence, now seems somewhat compromised. Few countries would dare to risk the lives of their nationals – even if they are military personnel – to establish a status as a regional power. Sovereignty seems to have changed in nature: it is less important to make a decision than to have the means to enact it. Simply stating a principle is no longer enough: the success of pure rhetoric is nullified by the power of the image. In this sense, a sovereign nation today is not just one that would have the courage to clearly identify an enemy. To deserve this title, it must also be capable of defeating it.
