Listen to the article
Amidst a persistent political deadlock, the Lebanese Parliament, which has become a pro at scoring one disappointment after the other, has once again failed to elect a new president on June 14th, marking the twelfth unsuccessful attempt. However, this latest unparalleled parliamentary session brought forth a new element: a real confrontation between the opposition forces (joined by the Free Patriotic Movement, FPM), and the Shiite duo (Amal – Hezbollah).
As such, the political tension revolves today around this unprecedented confrontation, which is unfolding on the eve of an imminent visit by former French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian, President Emmanuel Macron’s new envoy to Lebanon.
What lies in store for the French initiative in light of these latest internal and external developments?
Since the end of Michel Aoun’s term, which was marred by the worst institutional, financial, and economic crises Lebanon has ever witnessed, the position of President of the Republic has remained vacant. In its bid to elect a president able to restructure the country and gather international support, the opposition forces have attempted to join forces but the results were not up to par.
The first presidential candidate, Michel Moawad (a sovereigntist), failed to convince a majority of MPs. Without a credible alternative, France has opted for a pragmatic approach by backing Sleiman Frangieh (the Shiite’s duo candidate) for the presidency of the Republic, in exchange for the appointment of Nawaf Salam (a sovereigntist) as Prime Minister.
However, following the results of the June 14th election, with Frangieh securing 51 votes and Jihad Azour, (opposition candidate) 59 votes, has Paris realized that the Frangieh option is no longer viable? Is Paris also aware that the emergence of the second option, that of Jihad Azour, requires repositioning the French diplomacy?
According to Randa Takieddine, a Paris-based journalist, “The Elysée presidential Palace does not support any specific candidate, including Sleiman Frangieh, but advocates for a consensus in the election of a president.” She also points out that “today, the country is divided and Lebanon is in persistent decline. Le Drian’s mission will be almost impossible without an agreement among several influential powers involved in the Lebanese dossier.” Takieddine emphasized that “the Frangieh option was on the table as there was no clear and credible alternative. Now that another option has come up (that of Jihad Azour) Paris is open to any agreement that would lead to the election of a new president,” especially since Frangieh’s candidacy is sorely lacking a noteworthy Christian support.
With the appointment of a well-versed political figure such as Jean-Yves Le Drian to oversee the Lebanese dossier, what are the French President’s intentions? Faced with the unrelenting crisis that is paralyzing Lebanon, it is only legitimate to wonder about the role envisioned for Le Drian. The latter is known for his sovereigntist inclination, his opposition to the current political system, and his clear stance against Hezbollah. Could all of the above imply a possible reversal in French diplomacy and a concession to the Lebanese opposition which has rallied behind Jihad Azour? The nomination of Le Drian could thus mark the beginning of a new phase in the French effort, characterized by a change in strategy and a more assertive approach to address the complex challenges that lie ahead in Lebanon.
Takieddine offers a nuanced perspective and believes that “to initiate a mediation plan, Jean-Yves Le Drian cannot be an active party in the conflict and should not support either of the two candidacies (Frangieh or Azour).” She further adds, “Through this appointment, the French president aimed to breathe new life into French efforts in Lebanon.” Consequently, she expresses doubts about this new mission and wonders “if the French President himself failed to achieve concrete results from the Lebanese political class, what can be expected from Jean-Yves Le Drian? Only a convergence of international efforts can unlock the situation, mainly an agreement among Saudi Arabia, France, and Iran.”
Moreover, according to a well-informed Arab diplomatic source who requested anonymity, Saudi Arabia seems to have allegedly disengaged from the Lebanese dossier, giving ample room for Paris’ diplomatic efforts while openly expressing reservations to French officials regarding Sleiman Frangieh’s candidacy.
Within days of Mr. Le Drian’s visit next week, described as a “fact-finding” mission by the French presidential palace, what are the prospects that loom on the horizon? What developments and initiatives could ensue from this highly anticipated visit?
According to sources close to the Élysée Palace, at the end of his mission in Beirut, Jean-Yves Le Drian will present a detailed report to President Macron and Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna. The report will suggest a concrete roadmap, and various potential solutions. These will then be discussed with the diplomatic cell at the Élysée in charge of the Lebanese dossier.
The question remains whether the Lebanese stakeholders will rise to the challenge of taking charge of their country’s destiny and find a solution to the current situation without relying on foreign intervention. It is up to the Lebanese people to handle their future!
