Global Policy Forum

By Alain Gresh

Diplomats, political leaders and journalists are hanging on the statements of President Jacques Chirac and France's ambassador to Lebanon, Bernard Emié. Has France changed its Middle East policy and decided to make peace with the United States? The ease with which the countries have recently cooperated over Lebanon surprises even those involved.

Chirac began it. At the G8 summit at Sea Island, South Carolina, in 2004, he approached President George Bush with the idea of a UN resolution demanding withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. He stressed Lebanon's pivotal position and how essential it was to restore democracy there when Bush was pushing his greater Middle East plan. In October 2002 Chirac, visiting Beirut for the summit of French-speaking nations, affirmed that only peace in the Middle East would "enable Lebanon and Syria to harmonise their relations and complete full withdrawal of Syrian forces" (1).

What is behind France's reversal? Its disappointment with President Bashar al-Assad; Chirac nurtured him when he succeeded his father, but he proved incapable of undertaking any serious domestic reforms. It didn't help when Damascus awarded a big oil contract to Occidental PetroCanada, rather than Total. Then Chirac got the impression that Syria was sabotaging the economic reforms advocated by his friend Rafik Hariri, and jeopardising decisions taken at the Paris II summit in November 2002, at which substantial resources were allocated to rescheduling Lebanon's debt. Chirac also decided that cooperating with the US would be a good way to forget the acrimony caused by Iraq. This came as a big surprise to the White House, which had never taken much interest in the future of Lebanon.

In September 2004 the new entente led to UN Security Council resolution 1559, which called on Syria to withdraw its troops, and - at US instigation - demanded disarmament of the militia (armed groups in Palestinian camps and Hizbullah). Throughout the ensuing crisis Paris and Washington worked together for the departure of Syrian troops, the start of a public inquiry into the Hariri assassination and the organisation of a general election on the scheduled date.

How long will the honeymoon last? The US objective, in the larger context of its Middle East strategy, is to dispose of the Syrian regime and disarm Hizbullah. France is still undecided and has been waiting for the Ba'ath party congress this month to review its policy on Syria. It refuses to classify Hizbullah as a terrorist organisation and wants to leave it to the Lebanese to deal with disarmament. In May an envoy for Chirac assured the secretary general of Hizbullah on this point. The moderation counselled by Paris has so far prevailed (2).

Disarming Hizbullah would not be easy, nor is it clear who could take charge of such an operation. The Lebanese army is not up to the task. Many of its recruits are Shia and it worked closely with Hizbullah in the fight against Israeli occupation. In a show of force on 7 March, Hizbullah brought several hundred thousand people on to the streets and the elections seem likely to provide further proof of its current strength.

"We have never used our weapons against the Lebanese," says the Hizbullah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. "Our weapons have always been used to fight occupying forces and they are still used to protect the country against attacks." Israel occupied south Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 and incursions by Israeli jets are still a daily event. "We are defending Lebanon's sovereignty," he explains. "Previously, before forming a government in Beirut we had to consult Damascus. Nowadays we need the approval of Paris and Washington, Cairo and Riyadh."

Everyone knows that the disarmament of Hizbullah cannot be treated as a purely domestic issue. The future of Lebanon is linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if only because there are 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon. But it also depends on what happens in Damascus, on the climate in the Middle East, in particular in Iraq, and the standoff between Iran and the US. Hizbullah is a key component in the forces opposing US and Israeli domination and there is little chance it will give up this role, even in exchange for "compensation" in Lebanon.

Translated by Harry Forster

(1) Georges Corm, "Lebanon: a cedar ready to fall", Le Monde diplomatique, English language edition, April 2005.

(2) Disarming Palestinian groups is less strategic. They have little heavy equipment, and arms are mainly used to keep order in the camps and ward off outside attacks. cooperation.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.