It is not for lack of being warned, though. Particularly by the Americans. And some Saudi friends. But on Friday night at 00:00, French diplomacy had to resign itself and admit that it had indeed been trapped in Lebanon. And by those from whom it sought to obtain at the very least a benevolent neutrality. The pace of negotiations with Damascus, initially discreet, with surprising haste thereafter, already heralded the effects of a mechanism that would strip France’s actions of all substance. As usual, Syria skillfully played on the French naïveté in wanting to grant it, again and again, a bit of trust that an impressive accumulation of terrible misdeeds should forbid it from deserving. “We risk nothing by dialoguing with Syria,” was officially estimated at the Élysée.
Certainly, one cannot blame Paris for being heavily involved in the Lebanese dossier, an approach historically and affectively justified. However, one cannot fail to question the philosophy and the implementation conditions of its strategy. Hoping to decouple Syria from Iran, even going so far as to dangle the benefits of the European windfall to Damascus for a country on the brink of economic asphyxiation, reveals a Western penchant on the concept of well-being, somewhat ignored by the Syrian regime. Furthermore, it forgets the feelings of revenge that motivate Bashar al-Assad: first towards France, one of the countries that forced him to leave Lebanon in 2005, and towards the Lebanese whom he wants to make pay dearly for gaining their independence. There are, as mitigating circumstances, understandable concerns from Paris after the recent letter from President Ahmadinejad to his French counterpart. The “barely veiled threats” it contains may be directed at the French soldiers engaged in UNIFIL. One does not have to be clairvoyant to grasp the meaning of the reminder sent to French political authorities by the Iranian missive on the “common interests of France and Iran in Lebanon.” Especially when considering the statements made in this context by the Iranian deputy foreign minister, about Hezbollah being the one ensuring the security of UN forces in Lebanon.
Nevertheless, despite the rather solitary optimism of Bernard Kouchner regarding the “satisfactory developments” expected in the coming days and the very hypothetical appointment—mentioned in Paris but not in Beirut—of Commander-in-Chief Michel Sleiman to the presidency, it is a harsh blow for a French diplomacy anxious to regain an active and original presence in the Middle East, striving notably to make the Mediterranean Union project launched recently by President Sarkozy attractive. Many Lebanese, from all confessional backgrounds, were quite irritated by the lecture-like tones of the French Foreign Minister’s speeches, not to mention the discontent of the Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Sfeir, forced by France to provide a list of presidential candidates against his own advice, candidates whose prospects he had already predicted would not be taken into account in politicking maneuvers in a country like the Cedar with multifarious and ever-changing influences. In this political chaos, the Lebanese find two temporary reasons for satisfaction: the departure of a president completely subservient to Syria and a “fake true” declaration of a state of emergency whose dramatization has already fizzled out on the ground. According to Beirut residents, the military presence is less impressive than in recent days, and the number of armored vehicles, jeeps, and soldiers appears to be gradually diminishing.
While remaining true to its tradition of dialogue, France nonetheless gave the impression, unlike the Americans with whom it now claims closeness, of not knowing how to choose its side on the matter. By taking the initiative to solicit Damascus, Paris simultaneously sowed doubt on a potential pivot of its diplomacy towards “realpolitik” and alienated a large segment of Lebanese from whom it traditionally drew support. “Nothing before Annapolis,” is now heard in the embassies. Even though it primarily addresses the Israeli-Palestinian question, the conference on November 27 in the State of Maryland, where an official representative of Lebanon will attend despite Hezbollah’s opposition, cannot but address the political situation in the Cedar country. Once again, all eyes will turn to Syria and the United States. Without any added French value.
